Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin at Columbine

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent post Denyse O’Leary linked to a news story coverning Pekka Eric Auvinen, the Finnish student who killed eight in a shooting spree at his school.  Apparently Auvinen was an ardent Darwinist who considered himself to be an instrument of natural selection.  He wrote:  “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgaces of human race and failures of natural selection.”

One of O’Leary’s interlocutors more or less accused her of cherry picking her data to push her personal religious agenda.  Apparently this person believes this case is an aberation, and it is unfair to suggest a connection between Darwin’s theory and a school shooter’s self understanding as an instrument of natural selection.  Not so. 

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.”

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.

Comments
[…] Darwin at Columbine | Uncommon … – In a recent post Denyse O’Leary linked to a news story coverning Pekka Eric Auvinen, the Finnish student who killed eight in a shooting spree at his school. […]Peter Harris Lawyer | lawyertrick.com
May 30, 2016
May
05
May
30
30
2016
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
[…] (self-described Darwinian), the Finnish school shooter (instrument of natural selection), and the Columbine murderers (acting on Darwinian principles), there is a […]Sure enough, mass murderer of Muslim students is a Darwin fan | Uncommon Descent
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
[…] Carnegie and J.P. Morgan to the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger through Columbine killer Eric Harris, applying Darwinian evolution to human beings has been a […]The Druids of Darwin | Johnny Cirucci
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
[…] the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.”  As I have written before (see here), Harris was a thoroughgoing disciple of Darwin, and it was no coincidence that on the day of the […]Psychopath as Übermensch or Nietzsche at Columbine | Uncommon Descent
March 16, 2014
March
03
Mar
16
16
2014
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
[...] and Pekka Eric Auvinen, the young Finnish social Darwinist shooter (2007) , to say nothing of Eric Harris at Columbine. While some have pointed to these examples of the harm done by pop Darwinism, [...]Darwinism and popular culture: Bill Moyers moonlights as a geneticist | Uncommon Descent
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
[...] over a year ago, a young Finnish social Darwinist killed himself and eight others , in an event reminiscent of Eric Harris at [...]Ideas have consequences: Jesse Kilgore | Uncommon Descent
December 18, 2008
December
12
Dec
18
18
2008
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Arbitrator Home Based Business... There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle. ~ Albert Einstein...Arbitrator Home Based Business
April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
A question for Barry A: Why did the families of the victims not file civil lawsuits against the other members of the trenchcoat mafia(TCM) that were identified by witnesses as participants in the massacre?starviego
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
The trenchcoat mafia killers at Columbine weren't atheists, they were satanists: 1) TCMer Eric Dutro walking around the school cafeteria telling people that "Satan loves you"(Kelly Beer, 6106) in the spring of '98. 2) Courtney van Dell, aka 'devil girl,' wore barettes in her hair to make it look like she had horns. Said to be a 'wikken'(sic) or a devil worshipper(Kristi Mohrbacher(1010), Jessica Lucero(1508 ), Leigh Ann Clark(2723)). 3) The students seeking shelter with Clement Park worker Steve Ogle(1056) told him the perpetrators were TCM and were "satanists". 4) Jecoa Catt(1364) told IO that the TCM were satanic. 5) Jason Jones(1474) observed the TCM playing 'magic' cards in the cafeteria, which were about the devil and about power. 6) Lacey Shotts(1651) said she believed the TCM students were 'devil worshippers.' 7) Jen Smull saw Robert Perry at a halloween party dressed as a worlock(1827). 8 ) Student Perlman(4054) said Joe Stair used to come to woodshop class with a book he called 'the devil's bible'. 9) Prior to 4th hour on 4-20, Nicole Ray(4144) saw a male TCMer in the science hall, with his hair fashioned ino devil's horns. 10) TCM associate Nathan Dykeman's bedroom wall was supposedly covered with devil posters(4630). 11) Nathan Dykeman says Harris called him 'devil man'.(10710) 12) Daniel Burg(5838 ) told the IO that "...the TCM--they're like satanists." 13) TCM leader Chris Morris told Mark Hengel(5899) "I don't believe in God. I follow Satan's Commandmants." 14) Sara Lutes(6821) says the TCM were satanic, and that they wore satanic symbols on their shirts, underneath their trenchcoats. 15) Chris Hooker, 18, said they were "satanic individuals." "We'd see them every day. They've threatened to kill people ... but nobody thought that was serious," Hooker said. 16) Library Intern Mary Ziccardi(13647) spent one week at CHS in November of '98. Says Eric Harris "looked like the devil" and may have worn black lipstick. 17) Teacher Mr. Long(EP24-17) said he kicked TCM associate Joe Stair out the computer class for accessing satanic sights. This happened last year.(1998) 18 ) TCM associate Eric Ault(10645) told the IOs that "they were into satanic worship." 19) Jennfer Harmon(8835): "...one of their friends-'Becka'-was waiting for the devil to take over the soul." 20) Brooks Brown(USAToday.com): "They're(TCM) all big on anti-God Satanism. They are really just 'pure hate'." 21) What kind of music did the TCM like? 'Devil' music according to Brandi Wiseman(4751). 22) Trista Fogerty(1420): TCM were satanic, when she first got to CHS friends told her to avoid the group. 23) Nicole Markham(8794): "Harris was into...heavy satanic music." 24) Nicole Lawson, sophomore(3526): (TCM associates)"Stephanie(Kinny) and Kelly(Schwab) would draw "fnords" on the black board. Fnords are little symbols that were servants of the devil. They would draw a whole bunch of them. They did it when no one was looking." ['fnord' is thought to stand for 'for no other reason, discord'] 25) TCM associate Chuckie Phillips(10866) internet code(Puterfnord@...) name was meant to represent a servant of the devil. 26) Dustin Harrison(6577): "Dustin said (Redacted) 'scared me to death' because Dustin had heard that (Redacted) was a member of the "Hells Angels" satanic group and said that this satanic group is into human sacrifices. Dustin said that (Redacted) was very verbal about his desire to kill people."starviego
November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
One more time http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/streicher_remarks.htmltribune7
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
you’d have to ignore the the Nuremberg testimony of Der Sturmer editor Julius Streicher Let us not ignore the testimony of Julius Streicher: The teaching of Christianity has stood in the way of a radical solution of the Jewish problem in Europe... Oh heck, here's the link: a href=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/streicher_remarks.html"tribune7
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
you’d have to ignore the the Nuremberg testimony of Der Sturmer editor Julius Streicher Let us not ignore the testimony of Julius Streicher: The teaching of Christianity has stood in the way of a radical solution of the Jewish problem in Europe...tribune7
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Sorry, but I merely calls them as I sees them. In how you attacked someone who criticized the common (YEC and ID) claim that darwin was necessary for someone of hitler's attitudes. So, you're not an YEC creationist. What about an ID creationist. (or cdesign proponentist)? If you had found my examples unpersuasive and had told me why, I might have be motivated to add to the list. I did, but you disregarded it. So, why bother? The examples of christian anti-semitism (which is why I brought Avalos up in the first place) are abundant enough and documented enough that you'd have to somehow show that Martin Luther (author of "On the Jews and Their Lies") was not a christian; you'd have to discredit historians like Dagobert Runes whose mother died in the holocaust; you'd have to dismiss Hitler himself when he said how much he admired Martin Luther (Darwin wasn't mentioned in his book); you'd have to ignore the the Nuremberg testimony of Der Sturmer editor Julius Streicher who said that if Martin Luther were alive then, he'd be in the dock with them, because they just did what he originally suggested.Reynold Hall
November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
----Reynolds Hall: "You then, characteristically of creationists, start acting self-righteous in your pronouncements of my character." In rereading my comments, I find that I did make a rather snippy remark about your willingness to accept what I believed to be a dishonest account. I retract that comment. I also find that I described Hector Avalos' work as dishonest when I obviously have no way of knowing what his intentions were. Beyond that, I can only tell you that his work is full of errors. If you did not find my first two or three examples persuasive, then it will not profit me to add to the list. My guess is, most disinterested people who read my post #55 will recognize that I know what I am talking about and that I need not continue offering examples. If you had found my examples unpersuasive and had told me why, I might have be motivated to add to the list. As it is, I could flood the internet with 10 or 15 examples, including the arguments presented for christian anti-semitism and creationist rationale for abortion, many of which (not all) are ludicrous. But you could just as easily dismiss them as you did the first two. So, I think I will just let it go for now. By the way, I am not a creationist. But I'll leave it to you to decide whether you should take back that erroneous and judgmental comment.StephenB
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
StephenB In other words, you have no answer for my objections. I gave you my answer, you just ignored it. Let me try again. "The guy he quoted is speaking about that point from the Jewish perspective; you’re coming at it from a Christian perspective and just asserting that that perspective is right." All that's happened is Judaism has a different point of view about what "jesus" did to the law than what christians do. That's to be expected. How do you claim that they're lying? (Avalos took the Judaic view, and you accusing him of lying, so...) StephenB As I pointed out in the post, I don’t take the time to refute everything someone says if he is demonstrably dishonest and incompetent. Avalas lies and makes up things. My job was to record that fact in as few words as possible and then move on. Problem is, is that you have not demonstrated that Avalos "lies and makes up things". Even the part you were complaining about was referenced from some other author. What's really important, his material about the history of xian anti-semitism remains untouched by you, while you ID characters keep harping on about Darwins' supposed links to the holocaust. Even if you were able to show that he was wrong in that little snippet you quoted, you still have to show that the material he cited about the christian links to anti-semitism are wrong. Something you have not done You do know that Avalos is not the only one to do research into that subject, right? Try reading Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies". Avalos did, I did, you did not, obviously. Or how about historian Dagobert Runes' book "The Jew and The Cross"? Need any more books to read? Or are you just going to dismiss them as "lies", with no evidence given as such, also. StephenB Obviously, you are OK with lies if the person that tells them promises to advance your cause. That speaks volumes about you. Let's see here: You dismiss the facts given by someone who's done actual research, and who has listed his sources (which you're free to lookup to check his facts) on some unjustified accusation that he lies and makes his facts up. You then, characteristically of creationists, start acting self-righteous in your pronouncements of my character. Here's an idea: Why don't you do some research and read those books I mentioned? Or are you going to accuse Martin Luther of lying too? He was one of Avalos' sources after all. In order for you to show that Avalos is lying you're going to have to do a lot more than just making bald assertions. You have to show that his sources are wrong, since that's what he based his essay on.Reynold Hall
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
Reynold Hall wrote, "StephenB at #55 A lot of bluster here, where you “refute” a part of the guy’s work that didn’t have a thing to do with the actual reason for my bringing him up In the first place: The real reasons for the holocaust and anti-semitism. One would have thought that if Avalos’ work was so easily refuted, you’d have chosen to refute that part of his essay, you know, that deals with the reason I brought him up in the first place? Instead you deal with one paragraph that deals with some opinions about what the religion means. The guy he quoted is speaking about that point from the Jewish perspective; you’re coming at it from a Christian perspective and just asserting that that perspective is right. I couldn’t care less, that has virtually nothing to do with the majority of the essay which deals with anti-semitism." In other words, you have no answer for my objections. As I pointed out in the post, I don’t take the time to refute everything someone says if he is demonstrably dishonest and incompetent. Avalas lies and makes up things. My job was to record that fact in as few words as possible and then move on. That’s exactly what I did. Obviously, you are OK with lies if the person that tells them promises to advance your cause. That speaks volumes about you. Sadly, you miss the broader irony. If someone misrepresents the Judeo/Christian ethic, either out of confusion of malice, that person is hardly in a position to pass judgment on its social impact.StephenB
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
Since this site doesn't like links or long replies I'll just try posting my response back on that other site. You guys can read it there.Reynold Hall
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
StephenB My reply to that and to what Borne had posted earlier was linked to in the SFN link that I had in my previous post to him. This site is NOT a good place to post more than one link, it seems. Such comments never make it. Same as in ScienceBlogs, I've noticed. Nevertheless, I'll just re-post here what I said to you there: StephenB at #55 A lot of bluster here, where you "refute" a part of the guy's work that didn't have a thing to do with the actual reason for my bringing him up In the first place: The real reasons for the holocaust and anti-semitism. One would have thought that if Avalos' work was so easily refuted, you'd have chosen to refute that part of his essay, you know, that deals with the reason I brought him up in the first place? Instead you deal with one paragraph that deals with some opinions about what the religion means. The guy he quoted is speaking about that point from the Jewish perspective; you're coming at it from a Christian perspective and just asserting that that perspective is right. I couldn't care less, that has virtually nothing to do with the majority of the essay which deals with anti-semitism. The very next paragraph he starts dissecting Weikart again, yet you leave that alone. Why?Reynold Hall
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Borne wrote to Reynold Hall , "All you have done is continue to prove why we say that Darwinists, especially atheist Darwinists, live in denial of evidence and reality." Borne, I think this is what they call the "no concession policy."StephenB
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Reynold Hall, "All I’ve heard is a lot of huffing, puffing and mudslinging. Not even an attempt to refute, examine, or even mention the historical evidence that Avalos has shown which shows the religious basis for antisemitism." Well, not exactly. Although I didn't address the topic of anti-semitism, I did comment on his reasoning and his overall approach, albeit in an incomplete way. What is your response to what I wrote at #55StephenB
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
4. The clubs I know of are not in my sphere of influence and so my voice would be ineffective. In any event our entire culture exalts greed, selfishness etc. There are more effective ways to behave. Everybody picks their battles. OK, but in that case, those who do opportunity to give battle to these clubs, would certainly have your approval, right?tribune7
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
4. The clubs I know of are not in my sphere of influence and so my voice would be ineffective. In any event our entire culture exalts greed, selfishness etc. There are more effective ways to behave. Everybody picks their battles.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
getawitness -- Yes I know of some Objectivist clubs (both high school and college), and no I don’t speak out against them. OK, maybe it's because Objectivists really don't ascribe to the evil I described-- and I don't believe they do -- and you ought not to speak out against them. BUT, I posited in post 137 a group of students starting a “Looking Out For Number 1? Club in which selfishness, greed and coldly ignoring the needy are exalted and noted that a Christian should speak out against them. You said "there are in fact such clubs. They’re called Objectivist clubs" So you don't speak against them because you: 1. See nothing immoral about exalting selfishness, greed and coldly ignoring the needy? 2. You are a um, coward? 3. You were trying make a rhetorical point without fully thinking about it and Objectivists don't match the criteria I set? I'll be charitable and assume 3.tribune7
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
getawitness -- Yes I know of some Objectivist clubs (both high school and college), and no I don’t speak out against them. OK, maybe it's because Objectivists really don't ascribe to the evil I described-- and I don't believe they do -- and you ought not to speak out against them. BUT, I posited in post 137 a group of students starting a “Looking Out For Number 1? Club in which selfishness, greed and coldly ignoring the needy are exalted and noted that a Christian should speak out against them. You said "there are in fact such clubs. They’re called Objectivist clubs" So you don't speak against them because you: 1. See nothing immoral about exalting selfishness, greed and coldly ignoring the needy? 2. You are a um, coward? 3. You were trying make a rhetorical point without fully thinking about it and Objectivists don't match the criteria I set? I'll be charitable and assume 3.tribune7
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Reynold Hall: You say, "bull". You are way off in your response. 1. Did you ever actually read Descent of Man yourself? Rather than referring us to talkorigins.org or PT's ubiquitous tripe? Have you ever actually read anything other than PT and cie.? The words inferior and superior litter the pages of Descent. You cannot escape the racist implications of Darwin's theory. You could not possibly miss his entirely suspicious views on women and blacks. Does this prove the point of this thread? No. Nor was it the intention. My intention is to point out your erroneous readings of what others say. You read your own wayward thoughts into it all. I suggest you check out Dr. Weirkart's book 'From Darwin to Hitler' with his responses to Darwinist critics here There are at least 10 other books on the history of the subject that support his work. All the bull spouted by TO or PT etc. will never change the historical reality. Ask the people who were there and wrote books on it. Ask Arthur Kieth. Your own comments regarding his historically accurate rendering are pathetic indeed. Pure ignorance and more denial. You may as well deny there ever was a holocaust. The you further tie yourself up in mere denial (the typical Darwinist response to truth) with your remarks: "It seems the Sternberg case and others were blown out of proportion by you people. " Indeed? It must never have happened then eh! Ask him yourself! The list Darwinist persecution, black-balling, discriminations and totalitarian attitudes is large indeed. Overwhelming evidence. "About Columbine: According the the sheriff's report, no one was killed for their religion..." Indeed? I suggest you go to the parents of the victims and tell them your pathetic little version and let them tell you theirs. All you have done is continue to prove why we say that Darwinists, especially atheist Darwinists, live in denial of evidence and reality.Borne
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Yes I know of some Objectivist clubs (both high school and college), and no I don't speak out against them.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Whoops. That link should have led to the Cognitive Dissonance and True-Believer Syndrome section of that site. It has an example of Craig's logical thinking.Reynold Hall
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
getawitness --But there are in fact such clubs. They’re called Objectivist clubs, and they follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While an Objectivist would call by-right charity bad (as would St. Paul), it is my understanding they don't object to helping the needy or advocate ignoring the needy. But let's say my understanding is incorrect. Do you know of any Objectivist clubs and do you speak out against them?tribune7
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Let's see how many links can actually get through here (same problem as on scienceblogs, it seems) Borne at #103 Pointing anyone here to anything Hector Avalos, the most inane drone of all the inane drone atheist dupes around, is not going to score you any points. The man is a lame reasoner, self-contradicting and he always loses debates with W.L. Craig. You mean the christian apologist? I keep thinking that ID is supposed to be secular, and that you guys haven't figured out his identity. Oh well, just a coincidence, I'm sure. As for your love of logic, I'm sure you'd like to see how William Craig has let logical reasoning slip here Not to mention that his whole turn to atheism was based personal trauma in regards to the manipulations and sufferings he lived as a child preacher. He’s thus now on the war-path against all religion and hypocritically makes his living as a prof. of religion! Now THAT is a travesty. Talk about psycho-emotional reasons for denying the evidence of the existence of a designer!! Well, since you reject psycho-emotional reasons for "denying" someting, how's about you get in touch with the blog writers here and tell them that their linking evolution with lack of morality (completely fallacious, by the way) is just a set up for a psycho-emotional reason for "denying" evolution? After all, you are the one who says that atheists are the ones with no grasp of logic... How's about showing some of the "evidence for the existence of a designer" in the first place? As far as I know, no ID research papers have been written. Just thouroughly refuted books that are marketed straight to the public. See The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review on the Panda's Thumb, and Icons of Anti-Evolution - The Essays on the New Mexicans for Science and Reason website. All I've heard is a lot of huffing, puffing and mudslinging. Not even an attempt to refute, examine, or even mention the historical evidence that Avalos has shown which shows the religious basis for antisemitism. BTW, Avalos is far from the first one to find that information either. As for the stuff about "Darwinism and mental illness" I found on your blog? Since the comments are closed there, and none are shown, it's obvious that I can't deal with that on your own site. I'll have to see if I can deal with that elsewhere.Reynold Hall
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Since my long, link-filled replies (for further reading) aren't getting through, I'll just post the link to where I did post my reply. I'm not asking anyone to look at anything else on there, except my reply. hereReynold Hall
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply