Darwin at Columbine
| November 9, 2007 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
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.
166 Responses to Darwin at Columbine
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 #55
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
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?
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 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
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.
—-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.
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.
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…
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”
One more time
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar.....marks.html
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.”
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?
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…
[...] over a year ago, a young Finnish social Darwinist killed himself and eight others , in an event reminiscent of Eric Harris at [...]
[...] 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, [...]