Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

WND examines Norway’s terrorist:

Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’

{See Updates below at 2:30 PM on actions; & at 10:30 PM on Breivik’s manifesto}

Norwegian’s manifesto shows Breivik not religious, having no personal faith Posted: July 24, 2011 © 2011 WND

WASHINGTON – A review of Anders Behring Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto shows the media’s quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a “Christian” may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims. . . . many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway’s Labour Party – as a “right-wing, Christian fundamentalist.”

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God’s existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe’s “Christian culture” as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.
——————————————————–
[Note: Also, the Finnish school shooter and the Columbine shooters attributed their actions to Darwinism. Barry Arrington here was the lawyer for the Columbine victims and

read through every single page of Eric Harris’ journals; 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!”

In the age of Darwin worship, the memory hole awaits this stark fact. But maybe not this time. – UD News.]

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.” . . . The terrorist also candidly admits he finds no support within either the Catholic or Protestant churches for his violent ideas. . . .

“I am very proud of my Viking heritage,” he writes. “My name, Breivik, is a location name from northern Norway, and can be dated back to even before the Viking era. Behring is a pre-Christian Germanic name, which is derived from Behr, the Germanic word for Bear (or ‘those who are protected by the bear’).” . . .Likewise, media reports frequently characterized McVeigh as a “Christian,” though he adamantly denied any religious beliefs or convictions – placing his faith in science. . . .Breivik adds, “I went from moderately agnostic to moderately religious.”

In a question-and-answer section of his manifesto, Breivik asks himself, “What should be our civilisational [sic] objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?”
His answer is hardly the response of a “Christian utopian”: “‘Logic’ and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level.”

Religious worship and study is never noted in the manifesto as part of Breivik’s routine in preparing for his mission of mass murder. . . .Breivik also points out that his association with Christian cultural values is one of political expedience rather than religious commitment or faith . . .Breivik also claims membership in the Freemasons, which many Christians consider to be a cultic organization.

More specifically, he calls himself a Justiciar Knight . . .”As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus,” he writes. “. . . Over and over again, Breivik goes out of his way to make clear to readers of his manifesto that he is not motivated by Christian faith.
“I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person, as that would be a lie,” he says. “I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. . . .

Read more: Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian’
———————————————-
2:30 pm July 25th: Raising the title question raised issues faster than I expected. I support the excellent comments below by AussieID and kairosfocus.
Ideas have consequences. Should we not judge people by their actions?
Jesus observed:

Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.

Luke 6:44 NIV
Jesus commanded:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[”

Luke 10:27 NIV

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 13:34-35 NIV

Did Anders Behring Breivik obey Jesus’ command? The General Secretary of the World Council of Churches Rev. Olav Fykse Tveit,

“accused Norwegian gunman Anders Behring Breivik of blasphemy Monday for citing Christianity as a justification in his murderous attack on government buildings and a youth camp that left dozens dead. . . .” these actions in no way can express what is our Christian faith and our Christian values,”

For journalists to categorize Breivik as a “fundamentalist Christian” is a direct abuse of the public trust.

Did not Breivik apply “might makes right”? Communist regimes espoused Atheism and Darwinism. They collectively caused more than 94 million deaths to their own people as documented in The Black Book of Communism ISBN: 978-0674076082 –three times as many as all deaths in wars during the 20th century.
Objective statistics and actions suggest that Breivik acted on the social principles of Darwinism, not Christianity.
——————————————————————
10:30 PM July 25, 2011
Notes on: Anders Behring Breivik /Andrew Berwick A European Declaration of Independence
Breivik focuses on the expansion of Islam in taking over Christian countries in the Middle East, Africa, and then into Europe:
2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began

This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually. . . .Islam is certainly in a position to force unbelievers into Dhimmitude (as is happening in dozens of Muslim countries in varying degrees), and even to wage new jihads, this time with weapons of mass-destruction. . . .Islamic terrorism has started with Mohammed himself.

He cites: Muslim 3584; Islam & Islamic 3274; Christ & Christian 2447; law 695; Immigrant & Immigration 678; Jihad 602; Mohammad & Muhammad 311; Allah 300; Dhimmi & Dhimmitude 266; Sharia 140; Colonial Colonization 149; Maronite 112; Coptic 56; Orthodox 72

Breivik is concerned by:
“1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe” e.g.,

You cannot defeat Islamisation or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism… . . . More than 90% of the EU and national parliamentarians and more than 95% of journalists are supporters of European multiculturalism and therefore supporters of the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe;”

He cites: Marx & Marxist 1108; Multicultural 938; Political 1358; Correct 225

Breivik then addresses:
4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the
coming decades

This book presents the only solutions to our current problems. . . .The compendium/book presents advanced ideological, practical, tactical, organisational
and rhetorical solutions and strategies for all patriotic-minded individuals/movements.

He admires the Knights Templar as repulsing Islam and recovering Jerusalem. He uses: Europe 4275; Resistance 327; Solution 232; Patriot/Patriotic 224; Knight 610; Templar 221; Justiciar 326; Crusade 230; Malta 31; independence 84; Norway 219; Viking 13; martial 24; Hitler 53; Jesus 62; Darwin 4

Though dismissed as a “nut”, Breivik is tapping into the “clash of cultures” between Islam and the West. He had more than 7000 facebook friends before publishing his manifesto. There are numerous books on Islam and Europe and over 143 million hits on Islam Europe.

He may have committed his atrocity thinking to attract attention to his manifesto. This neither condones nor explains Breivik’s demonic/murderous actions, but might explain some of his frustrations.

————————————-

UPDATE September 20, 2011:  kairosfocus asked ((163) , (213) So I changed from “Norway shooter a Darwinian terrorist?” to “Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?” to emphasize that this is a question not a statement, and it refers to the social not biological consequences of Darwin’s writings (within severe title length constraints). I wrote this post to challenge the assertion that Breivik was a Christian terrorist when Breivik himself said he was not a religious Christian. I showed that there is significant evidence that Breivik loved/supported Darwin. (169); quotes Breivik talking as a Social-Darwinist, emphasizing “we”:

Social-darwinism was the norm before the [sic] 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel [in context, 80 – 90%]. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist.

; That is NOT to say that Social Darwinism was Breivik’s only or primary motivation as numerous posts below explore. Yet the moral and social consequences of Darwin’s writings strongly impacted the 20th century and continue to do so. DLH

Comments
"Objective statistics and actions suggest that Breivik acted on the social principles of Darwinism, not Christianity." - DLH It is difficult to draw a very tight correlation between 'Darwinism' and Breivik's views. As was said above, he only used Darwin's name 5 times and even acknowledged 'Darwinian atheists.' But, we can do something more clearly with how he uses the term 'evolution.' In other words, it makes sense to call him a 'socio-cultural evolutionist' more than a 'social Darwinist'. "If the present [read: socio-cultural] evolution continues, immigration will increase the pressure on the welfare state rather than relieving it because many immigrants do not join the tax-paying part of the population." (2083: 409) "It appeared to many including writers like Francis Fukuyama that we have reached the end of History, meaning that we have reached the final stage in the evolution of human society with democracy as the best way to organise society." (746) "The cost of equality is that we throw out all truthfulness in order to seem like nice people to each other. / It arises from our fear of evolving to the next stage, which would naturally occur from our most capable people, because we’re afraid of personally being left behind — just as we’re afraid of having a lower place in the current crab bucket of society." (2083: 690) He defines [socio-cultural] evolution as: "seeking to get better" (692) and speaks of "scientific evolution" (1132). Does anyone at UD define 'Darwinism' as 'seeking to get better' or posit that 'science evolves?' 2083 is much more focussed on reVo than eVo, but it is not a 'scientific reVo'. Thanks, GregoryGregory
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
EL @ 134 "No indeed, tgpeeler, human life cannot be both valuable and worthless." So you DO agree to the truth of the law of non-contradiction? Is that what I'm hearing? EL "And no, as a “proponent of naturalistic evolution” I do not “agree that there is no qualitative difference in the value of a fish or a human being”." Interesting. Why not? Given your naturalism and atheism? I'm curious. Just to be clear, a human is more important than a fish? Right? How about an ape? Or a whale? A reptile? A plant? Bacteria? Where and how do you draw the line? On what basis? Inquiring minds want to know. If you run away, who will make your "argument?"tgpeeler
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Hitler’s regime espoused Christianity
You know this to be true from your own studies into the subject I take it? I recently completed reading a Christmas Eve address by Goebbels and there was nary a mention of Jesus or Christ.Mung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
mung re #106, #109 Yes. “Your mission” Mung, “should you decide to accept it” is to detail how you “teach” your “indoctrinating biologists class” and distinguish why it is a “doctrine” rather than “science”. DLH
Is it just coincidence? Indoctrinating Biologists 101 Biological Indoctrination 101 Working up a syllabus. But for sure there's going to be a section on: Why Your Inner Fish is a Load of Carp But as an example from Cornell material:
Evolution is change in form and behavior of populations of organisms over generations. Evolution can lead to speciation, the formation of new species from existing species over time as changes accumulate in the genome of isolated populations of a species. That evolution occurs is a fact; there is a wealth of evidence showing that organisms have changed--evolved--over time.
So evolution is change over time. Whoop de doo. Allen, is that what you teach your biology students?Mung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle 127 Eugenics is an ideology based on artifical selection which was around long before Darwin, and indeed, gave him his idea of “natural selection”. kairosfocus 135 We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea... ~ Francis Galton The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. ~ Francis Galtonbevets
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: The historic, authentic Christian faith is an established fact of 2,000 years standing. It is not a wax nose to be half melted and reshaped as we will, in direct contrast to the sort of ideas now being popularised and vulgarised by Dan Brown and ilk as well as too much of the media. I suggest you look here and I suggest you look at the table here. This is not a theology blog, but the issue is one of a historically founded fact with ample first generation documentation, strongly supported by research. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Re, 127:
Hitler’s regime espoused Christianity and eugenics. That is not a black mark against Christianity any more than it is a black mark against Darwinism.
By now you know or should know that Hitler's regime was in fact fundamentally hostile to Christianity -- e.g. cf the already linked NYT expose cf JDFL's link here, five days ago], so the above little exercise in subtle immoral equivalency does not show you in a good light at all. Hitler tried to subvert the churches of Germany, with long-term intent to destroy Christianity. (And, this was his actual idea-root, documented in his major book in 1925/6.) That is why the strong stance repudiating Nazism as idolatry and subversion of the gospel taken by key leaders at Barmen in 1934 was so important. And, as the just above linked shows his eugenics was explicitly a social darwinism motivated ideology. The roots of such, I have already pointed out to you at 45 above. I know, these are very painful facts, but facts they are. As are the facts documented in the linked diagram, from the logo for the 1921 Second Int'l conference on Eugenics. Take a careful look at the roots and the slogan in the logo, and the level of endorsement for eugenics as a "scientific" movement, as is described here. Christians of the time were under considerable social and intellectual pressure to acknowledge the "science" of the day, as presented or endorsed by extremely prestigious sources; an applied "science" which has now been repudiated -- after horrible things were done through the devaluation of the principle of Imago Dei. Do you see part of why Christians of today are going to be very careful indeed to ascertain the warrant for claimed science that is ethically controversial in our day? Next, you should be prepared to acknowledge the historical fact that while selective breeding of animals goes back one way or another to the dawn of human history and there were advocates of breeding up superior human beings [and the sad practice of exposing unwanted, apparently sick or weak babies in classical -- pagan -- times], eugenics as a scientific movement was named and founded by Darwin's cousin Galton, in key part on the premises in Darwin's theory. As the NWE article summarises:
The word eugenics etymologically derives from the Greek words eu (good) and gen (birth), and was coined by Francis Galton in 1883. The term eugenics is often used to refer to movements and social policies that were influential during the early twentieth century. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." It is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool. Some forms of infanticide in ancient societies, present-day reprogenetics, preemptive abortions, and designer babies have been (sometimes controversially [--> I add: as such are patently anachronistic, after the fact moral equivalency arguments]) referred to as eugenic . . . . During the 1860s and 1870s, Sir Francis Galton systematized his ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of humans and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton noticed an interpretation of Darwin's work whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. Only by changing these social policies, Galton thought, could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity," a phrase that he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean."[2] According to Galton, society already encouraged dysgenic conditions, claiming that the less intelligent were out-reproducing the more intelligent. [--> cf, Hitler's discussion and the backdrop in Darwin's Descent of Man chs 5 - 7] Galton did not propose any selection methods; rather, he hoped that a solution would be found if social mores changed in a way that encouraged people to see the importance of breeding. Galton first used the word eugenic in his 1883 Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, a book in which he meant "to touch on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of race, or, as we might call it, with 'eugenic' questions." He included a footnote to the word "eugenic" which read:
That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viriculture which I once ventured to use.[3: Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development (London, Macmillan, 1883): 17, fn1. Retrieved January 24, 2008.]
This, doubtless, is not pleasant reading for you, but I think that this is a matter where some unpleasant facts that have had serious adverse impact on history need to be faced squarely. GEM of TKI PS: I am also quire unhappy with how you have brushed aside Marxist thought as though it had no link to darwinism across C20. I point out how Stalin for instance even while in school, began from Darwin, to discredit the teachings of the priests who seemed to have dominated education in Russia at that time. Similarly, the general evolutionary materialist "scientific" picture was seen as extended by Marx, to include their theory of socio-cultural and economic evolution on the various materialisms, e.g historical and dialectic. What was challenged by Lysenko et al was the emerging neo-Darwinian synthesis -- which is a development on Darwin, and of course he got political sponsorship. He was wrong. But at no point was there a question that the general intellectual and "scientific" picture was not a materialistic, evolutionary one. Indeed, from what I gathered decades ago, the motivation for requiring doctoral candidates in the USSR to present a paper on atheism, was to show that they had the proper "scientific" perspective. (You will notice that I habitually refer to evolutionary materialism. This covers the specific areas of my concern, and I draw your attention to the very different view presented by Wallace, as I already have linked.)kairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
No indeed, tgpeeler, human life cannot be both valuable and worthless. And no, as a "proponent of naturalistic evolution" I do not "agree that there is no qualitative difference in the value of a fish or a human being". And with that, I'll leave this thread. There's a limit to how much boiling my blood can take.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
EL @ 127 "It just makes those who do so morally reprehensible." And why might that be? Upon what basis is someone morally reprehensible? Because you say so? Because it offends your sensibilities? It obviously didn't offend the shooter's sensibilities. So how do we tell who's the evil one here? Actually, if you were true to your doctrine you would have to say there is no evil. I thought I saw you saying something about not beging able to get "ought from is" in a post somewhere above. But if all that exists is the physical world, then IS is ALL THERE IS. You have no standing to talk of ought. Think about it. I think darwinists would be well served to study the logic of implication. This means, darwinist, that when I say this (life is contingent, meaningless, temporary, and amoral) THEN other things necessarily follow. This is what you just do not get. You cannot have it both ways. Human life cannot be valuable beyond measure AND worthless. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't you, as an proponent of naturalistic evolution, agree that there is no qualitative difference in the value of a fish or a human being? So why the outrage? Go ahead, explain it to me.tgpeeler
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Hitler’s regime espoused Christianity
According to what definition Christianity?
Quite. That's the problem isn't it? People cherry pick what suits them from what is available, whether it's a scientific theory or a religion. Despite the fact that the dog's dinner that emerges satisfies no-one's definition of the originals. Look, it was wrong for the press to say that the killer was a Muslim; they retracted it. It was wrong for the press to say that the killer was a Christian Fundamentalist. They retracted it. It is wrong for this OP to suggest that the killer was a Darwinist. It remains unretracted, and to my astonishment, at least some people seem to think that is OK. kairosfocus, bless him, doesn't.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle To say: "Hitler’s regime espoused Christianity" suggests you little of either Hitler or Christianity or the persecution and murder of Christians in WWII. There is much evidence of Hitler associated with the occult and satanism. He killed millions of Christians in the Holocaust. See publications by and about Dietrich BonhoefferDLH
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Hitler’s regime espoused Christianity
What do you mean, specifically, by "Hitler's regime?" Hitler himself? Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels?Mung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle See: James Perloff The case against Darwin
Karl Marx said: "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.". . . "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin." In it we read: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates: "I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said: "'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. ...' "I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. "'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed. "'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said. "'What book is that?' I enquired. "'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me." . . Sir Arthur Keith, president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, wrote in the 1940s: "The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." In his demented way, Hitler was fulfilling this prediction Darwin made in his book, "The Descent of Man": "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. ... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian [Aborigine] and the gorilla."
WND.com Feb 21, 2001DLH
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
Hitler’s regime espoused Christianity
According to what definition Christianity?Mung
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
DLH:
Did not Breivik apply “might makes right”? Communist regimes espoused Atheism and Darwinism.
No, they did not. Russian communism espoused atheism, but not Darwinism, which was what put their agricultural program back for so long (or was one reason). And you are still confusing "Darwinism" with "eugenics". Hitler's regime espoused Christianity and eugenics. That is not a black mark against Christianity any more than it is a black mark against Darwinism. Eugenics is an ideology based on artifical selection which was around long before Darwin, and indeed, gave him his idea of "natural selection". Nobody on this board, that I know of, denies that artifical selection can be utilised to produce good quality crops and farm animals. That some have sought apply this idea (not that there is any reason to think that Breivik did) to people does not make artifical selection not true. It just makes those who do so morally reprehensible. Yes, ideas have consequences, and yes people are responsible for their actions. But that does not make evolutionary biologists responsible for Breivik. It makes Breivik responsible for Breivik. Your headline (which I'm sorry to see has still not been edited) is a shameful exploitation of an appalling tragedy to make a cheap debate point about a scientific theory. The fact that it is pinned to the top of this site today should be a source of embarassment to regular posters, and anyone associated with the ID movement. And lest anyone assume "mock outrage", it's not. And yes, I'm still angry.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
There are numerous cases of serial killers who explicitly state their decision to go on a killing spree was undergirded by Darwinism. It is really important to get people to understand this, as eliminating Darwinistic rationales would stop this from happening in the future. That's why it is counterproductive to on the one hand say this event shouldn't point the finger at Darwinism, yet on the other say we need to stop this thing from happening in the future. I think the examples are just much too common to minimize Darwinism's role. Additionally, most people seem to misunderstand how Darwinism plays a logical role. Most think it has something to do with natural selection. However, the real issue is that Darwinism eliminates belief in the Imago Dei, the notion that humans are unique creations by God, and should never be objectified as tools for use by some megalomaniac. Social Darwinism, ironically, is actually an instance of Intelligent Design at work, as is any idea of progress founded upon Darwinism. -------------- (DLH wrapped sentences.)Eric Holloway
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
See my update at the bottom of the lead post. Having grandparents from Norway, I join in prayers for those who have lost family and friends through this tragedy. In the middle ages, Viking marauders caused people to pray: “Oh Lord save us from the rage of the Nordic people” Breivik may have tapped into roots that “might makes right”. The primary issue is the press’ mischaracterization of Breivik as a “Christian fundamentalist terrorist Further articles/blogs: Michael Brown explores A Right Wing, Fundamentalist Christian Mass Murderer Breivik, McVeigh: Darwinian Terrorists? Norway terrorist claims Christianity, but Darwinism too For background see: Religion in NorwayDLH
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
mung re #106, #109 Yes. “Your mission” Mung, “should you decide to accept it” is to detail how you “teach” your “indoctrinating biologists class” and distinguish why it is a “doctrine” rather than “science”. DLHDLH
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
BTW, James Watson is a molecular geneticist, not an evolutionary biologist.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
So AM has no words to dissuade a psychopath, but I bet Mike does. That's a problem for the defense, isn't it. Is it that some of us believe in the possibility of talking a potential mass murderer out of his sin, and that some of us do not? So the materialist camp writes it all off as nut-jobbery, and the theists reason that it could have possibly been prevented with the injection of some reason: that there exists an objective morality and that we're all accountable for our actions in eternity.material.infantacy
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Re comment #118: How about this one: http://www.zazzle.com/evolution_women_from_man_to_business_woman_photocard-243916274761144096 or this one: http://www.spreadshirt.co.uk/evolution-yoga-women-C4414I12745868 BTW, the iconic "march of human evolution" illustration is from a 1965 Time/Life book on human evolution:
"The March of Progress was originally commissioned by Time-Life Books for the Early Man volume (1965) of its popular Life Nature Library. This book, authored by anthropologist F. Clark Howell (1925-2007) and the Time-Life editors, included a foldout section of text and images (pages 41-45) entitled “The Road to Homo Sapiens”, prominently featuring the sequence of figures drawn by noted natural history painter and muralist Rudolph Zallinger (1919-1995). As the popularity of the image grew and achieved iconic status, the name "March of Progress" somehow became attached to it."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Progress As to the assertion that evolutionary biologists use this illustration as an example of human evolution, consider this:
"Perhaps the most eminent critic of March of Progress imagery was the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) who condemned the iconology of the image over several pages of his 1989 book Wonderful Life. In a chapter entitled “The Iconography of an Expectation”, Gould asserted that...
"The march of progress is the canonical representation of evolution – the one picture immediately grasped and viscerally understood by all…. The straitjacket of linear advance goes beyond iconography to the definition of evolution: the word itself becomes a synonym for progress…. [But] life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress. - Gould, S. J. (1989), Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp 30-36
In my own evolution course at Cornell I have the students criticize the "March of Progress" icon, and most of them immediately come up with Gould's criticism, plus the fact that the "end product" is classically a white male. Given current demographics, it should be an Asian female (and would still be wildly inaccurate by Gould's criteria).Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
In comment #117 mike 1962 asked:
"What words would you use to convince the Norway Shooter of this?"
In my experience, narcissistic psychopaths are essentially immune to words (especially moral exhortations) that conflict with their personal desires. So, to answer your question, in the case of Anders Behring Breivik, I don't think there are any words that would have altered his behavior.Allen_MacNeill
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Haeckel.kairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
Prof. XF Gumby: "Proof please or retract. Something published by an “academic Darwinist” in the last 10 years." === Do you Geniuses ever read what your retorting to ??? Also please dump the phony righteous indignation, because you know full well what I'm talking about. Also as you can see, I play no favourites here on this subject. What part of "academic Scientists" - "they won’t publicly promote a racist attitude " didn't you get ??? I believe someone here has mentioned James Watson who back in 2009 with his infamous "blacks are less intelligent than Europeans" rant. But more importantly as the old saying goes , "a picture is worth a thousand words." This of course brings us to every illustration depicting some type of imaginary Ape-type human ancestor with the vivid imagination of a Soothsaying Darwinist who colours the artwork of the half human half animal creature with Negroid features. Seriously, why are all these transitionals given African features ??? My other comment was - "they unconsciously do anyway when they promote all those racist evolutionary graphs & charts which depict someone from Africa with a Negroid background as being the living transitional proof between white Europeans and Apes." So again, the illustrations speak for themselves. Now tell me these pics have no effect on the minds and hearts of young people in schools across the planet ??? I can tell you for a fact that African Students I work with hate it.Eocene
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill #86: "Killing almost a hundred innocent people (the overwhelming majority of them children) is not right, regardless of whether a deity says so or not (even if they were Canaanites)."
What words would you use to convince the Norway Shooter of this?mike1962
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
This kind of media spectacle is always disgusting. Either the media will try to paint the perpetrator as some kind of right-winger or they will make excuses for them. As far as I'm concerned this was a guy who wanted to rationalize his urge to use his automatic or semi-automatic weapons in a video game like fashion. There's no denying it in this case. He specifically says that Call of Duty was his training ground. Does that mean video games are to blame necessarily? Not really.Phaedros
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill @ 56 "2) the major premise that atheists are immoral and potential psychopathological murderers is invalid." Not to put too fine a point on it, but premises are true or false. Arguments are valid or invalid. What I find amazing is that self proclaimed atheists are trumpeting moral certainties. Based on ... what? If there is no God and no ultimate accounting then there is no moral law worth calling a law. You can't have it both ways. But then again, they HAVE to have it both ways because atheism is impossible to live out in a rational way. In a "rational" atheist worldview, morality ultimately is defined by force.tgpeeler
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Oh, here it is: If philosophies don't affect actions, then why would anyone be concerned whether ID is taught or not?lamarck
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Ideas whether good or bad, and in particular omission of ideas in the youth, shape a whole lot more about this society than crime statistics. How many amish shooters have there been? No, face the facts Bio Professors, you are inculcating this crap if only by omission and it effects people's thinking and so their actions. Probably in the last 10 minutes, the term "natural selection" has been typed 500 times worldwide on the internet by people not even talking about evolution, the idea has branched out. With this much evidence for ID you start to have a responsibility towards mankind.lamarck
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
I agree with Gumby. Let's leave all the tawdry point scoring to our anti-ID guests. We shouldn't be trying to score points when we have so many ridiculous accusations to respond to. After all, the entire ID movement is nothing but cheap point scoring. See here for an example. With that sort of thing going on, it's no wonder our guests obsess on a few comments from a few fun-loving shit disturbers. That sort of thing only happens on this blog, and not on all those other blogs and forums that our guests frequent; and it's worse here than anywhere else.material.infantacy
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Leave a Reply