Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Will Evolution Weekend Sermons Discuss Alleged Murderer Amy Bishop?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Today is the closing day of “Evolution Weekend”. The weekend is promoted by The clergy letter project. This is a weekend dedicated to glorifying Darwinism in churches.

Curiously one of the scientists on call to help clergy and parishioners promote the glories of Darwinism was Amy Bishop, she is listed here:

Name: Amy Bishop, Ph.D.
Title: Associate Professor
Address: Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Huntsville, AL 35899
Areas of Expertise: neuroscience, molecular biology, genetics, evolution of the human brain
Email: ——-@uah.edu

Amy Bishop was charged in the murder of several people recently. Now, there are some very fine Darwinists like Francis Collins, and I don’t mean to say Amy Bishop is representative of all Darwinists. But I’d recommend that if the Clergy Letter Project wishes to put on a good face for Darwinism, they might consider disassociating themselves from Amy Bishop.

They may not want to promote “survival of the fittest” in their sermons today. That would be kind of poor taste in light of the fact a presumed societal degenerate (Bishop) is the “fittest” survivor while 3 (possibly 4) innocent victims are the “unfit” dead. Think I’m overstating the case against Darwinism? Consider what Evolutionary Psychologist David Buss argues in his book The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill

murder is the product of evolutionary forces and that the homicidal act, in evolutionary terms, conveys advantages to the killer.

NOTES:
Here is the Fox10’s report on Amy Bishop Biology professor charged with murder

A biology professor at the University of Alabama’s Huntsville campus was charged with murder late Friday in the shooting deaths of three fellow biology professors at the campus….
Amanda Tucker, a junior nursing major from Alabaster, Ala., had Amy Bishop for anatomy about a year ago. Tucker said a group of students went to a dean complaining about Bishop’s performance in the classroom, and Tucker signed a petition complaining about Bishop.

“When it came down to tests, and people asked her what was the best way to study, she’d just tell you, ‘Read the book.’ When the test came, there were just ridiculous questions. No one even knew what she was asking,'” said Tucker.

Andrea Bennett, a sophomore majoring in nursing, was in one of Bishop’s classes Friday morning.

Bennett said nothing seemed unusual, but she described Bishop as being “very weird” and “a really big nerd.”

“She’s well-known on campus, but I wouldn’t say she’s a good teacher. I’ve heard a lot of complaints,” Bennett said

There are also now questions about why liberal congressmen Delahunt (then a District Attorney for Braintree Massachusetts) had her released from police custody after shooting her brother in 1986. See: Professor Amy Bishop Shot & Killed Her Brother in 1986 Dem Rep. Delahunt Made Call to Release Bishop

A Massachusetts police chief is now saying that UAH shooting suspect Amy Bishop shot and killed her brother during an argument, and the case may have been mishandled by the police department more than two decades ago when the fatal shooting occurred.

The Boston Globe reported that Amy Bishop, a biology professor at UAH who is accused of shooting and killing three colleagues yesterday, accidentally shot her 18-year-old brother, Seth M. Bishop, in the abdomen with a 12-gauge shotgun in December 1986.

The report said Bishop was asking her mother, Judith, how to properly unload the gun when it when off and a shot struck Seth.

Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier is now offering a different account of the shooting to The Globe: “Bishop had shot her brother during an argument and was being booked by police when the police chief at the time ordered the booking process stopped and Bishop released to her mother,” the paper reports on its Web site. Records from the case have been missing since 1987.

Braintree officers who remember the 1986 shooting said that former police Chief John Polio dismissed detectives from the case and ordered the department to release Amy Bishop after a telephone conversation with former district attorney William Delahunt.

Delahunt is currently a U.S. congressman from Massachusetts.

HT: my good friend Mike Gene for uncovering the book by David Buss and Amy Bishop’s entry in the Clergy Letter Project

Comments
From a purely materialistic paradigm, what biological mechanism allows one to combat "natural tendencies?" This is like saying that good and bad behavior is dictated solely by instinct. If this were the case your instincts would be in constant conflict, and we would be unable to give one credence over the other, let alone discern which should hold more intrinsic value. Dr. MacNeill, you quoted Dawkins here, but I'm really not seeing how he can reconcile this statement: “No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.” How can he choose when Darwinian "laws" apply, and when they do not unless one accounts for some other natural function which allows for this (again, this depends on the materialist worldview, which Dawkins subscribes to)? Specifically, how does one combat natural selection? As I'm writing this I see now that I'm merely echoing Upright BiPed's objection in post 89.HouseStreetRoom
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Let me clarify ... it is most emphatically true that is does not = ought. So is the accusation that someone here doesn't understand this or is lying about it relevant and anything but a red herring?Charlie
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Oh yes, it's always nice when moral lecturer Allen MacNeill arrives to echo Dawkins in calling those who disagree with him either ignorant or liars. if is doesn't = ought then where do oughts come from in a world of only is?Charlie
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
"are partially the result of natural selection" What else? This is an equivocation. If matter is all there is, then matter is all there is. The opposite (and passionately argued) view results in matter and purely material processes ending in a phenomena that is more than matter because it requires more than matter to explain it. Best regards...Upright BiPed
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Personally, I think both bad and good behavior have natural tendencies that are partially the result of natural selection.
Agreed, although I think (because I believe we are deteriorating), that we have a stronger tendency to evolve to be worse (physically, mentally, morally), not better. i.e. Ghengis Khan This gloomy view is consistent with Christian theology:
There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. ... They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 2 Tim 3
scordova
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
is = ought
The way I understand it, in a purely materialistic philosophy there is no inherent reason (logically speaking) for "ought" as far as moral decisions. What is an "Ought" becomes an adaptation, and thus subject to change. Whereas in a universe where morals are not rooted in material entities, there is a sense of right and wrong that transcends adaptation (i.e. Ghengis Khan's behavior will always be morally reprehensible, even though it was favored by selection in some respecdts). My understanding is that you do not regard yourself as a materialist. PS Forgive the delay in your comments showing up. Had I known you were visiting I would have been speedier to respond (and as I said, even I an restrained by the software, if you notice, my comments don't appear on other threads!). I will be driving to class shortly and be gone for the rest of the day. I hope to be around this evening. I'll try to be prompt in assisting display of your comments. One of the mods can pick up the slack in my absense. Thank you for your comments, always nice to see you.scordova
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
sorry: the ? mark showed up on my monitor as a "does not equal" signAllen_MacNeill
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Personally, I think both bad and good behavior have natural tendencies that are partially the result of natural selection. Therefore, I agree with T. H. Huxley, who wrote
"Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating [evolution by natural selection], still less in running away from it, but in combating it." [http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/E-E.html]
This is essentially the same as Dawkins' position, as quoted in comment #40:
"No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.”
To reiterate a basic principle of ethics (one which many commentators here either do not understand or chose to either ignore or deliberate misrepresent for propaganda purposes):
is ? ought
There is no contradiction in either Huxley or Dawkins' positions vis-a-vis the distinction between what evolutionary theory says about our behavioral tendencies and our moral obligations. Conflating the two is to misrepresent both and thereby to potentially commit very great evil.Allen_MacNeill
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
hrun, You are not too snappy on this topic are you? I'll try to spell it out. Of all the murders that take place, how many do you think are the result of brain tumors? And how many do you think are the result of envy, anger, greed, hubris, jealousy, racism, the thirst for control, the lust for power, etc etc etc ???? Now stay with me a second... Are envy, anger, greed, hubris, jealousy, racism, the thirst for control, the lust for power, etc, "normative" of humans? Start putting tacks on your map and stop at the number of people who experience envy, anger, greed, hubris, jealousy, racism, control, the lust for power, etc and then tell me if these are normative. Now is it even possible you could miss this point? Murders are the overwhelming result of emotions we all have. They are not the result of an un-named impulse; a rare "murder emotion", and the rarity of murder is not the question and it never was. If evolution is to explain these emotions, then it is also what explains the emotions that lead to murder. A thesis from an evolutionary psychologists was offered in evolutionary terms:
murder is the product of evolutionary forces and that the homicidal act, in evolutionary terms, conveys advantages to the killer.
You disagreed with it. So again I asked: "if the drive to commit murder is not the result of the materially explicable forces of evolution, from where did it come? Was the drive immaterial? Was it free will?"Upright BiPed
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Sal, Have you heard any word on Dr. Sanford's testing of ancient bacteria?bornagain77
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Buss seems keenly insightful. This statement (and in fact the whole post) explains why I have no desire to engage in discussion with you, Sal. I doubt very much that you believe that Buss is ‘keenly insightful’. In fact, I highly doubt that he even ’seems’ insightful to you. So why phrase your question that way?
So when Dawkins claims (as he did in his debate with lennox) that our altruism is orginated through evolutionary processes, you have issues with the notion that selfish tendencies(like killing for the sake of selfish advantage) are not due to evolutionary processes? Am I misuderstanding you, or do you agree with Buss.
This statement (and in fact the whole post) explains why I have no desire to engage in discussion with you, Sal.
But don't you want to teach our readers about evolutionary theory. Isn't the origin and evolution of our behaviors and attitudes an important topic. Personally, I do think bad behavior is a natural tendency, and evolutionary forces only make them worse.scordova
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
At issue is whether the moral universe is as immutable as the aspects of the physical universe. For example, in physics, there are principles that are considered universal. Dawkins has proposed the tendency toward charity and love are mere adaptations (therefore they would not be universals). If so the revulsion toward killing is only an adaptation, it does not necessarily have any significance in the order of the universe sice such things are merely adaptations (thus subjet to change). Such a view of moral character is hardly the stuff of sunday morning sermons. What might be a better view for sunday morning? Francis Collins ideas... Francis Collins beleives moral character comes from God because it is inconsistent with Darwinian processes! The tendency toward murder (and all the the sins listed in the ten commandments), could well be part of natural tendencies. That is perfectly consistent with Christian theology (that the natural man has tendency to do these things). If Collins is correct, then moral character (both human and even in the animal kingdom) come from a higher power.scordova
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
hrun:
Just look up how ‘murder’ is defined.
A flock of crows. I don't see the problem :) I see murders every day where I liveJoseph
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Buss seems keenly insightful.
This statement (and in fact the whole post) explains why I have no desire to engage in discussion with you, Sal. I doubt very much that you believe that Buss is 'keenly insightful'. In fact, I highly doubt that he even 'seems' insightful to you. So why phrase your question that way?hrun0815
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Nope. The existance of those rare proteins is not explained by evolution. Only their increase or decrease in frequency in the population.
Well then, by that line of argumentation, when a new protein emerges, it is at first rare, therefore according to you, its origin or presence is not explained by evolution. :-) Your line of argumentation appears a bit shaky.scordova
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
UprightBiPed,
If the drive to commit the murder is not the result of the materially explicable forces of evolution, from where did it come? Was the drive to commit the murder immaterial? Was it free will?
I believe it is an exaggeration to portray the forces of evolution as 'materially explicable'. Be that as it may, who who knows, maybe she's a victim of child abuse? Lots of people are, many of them commit murders, even become serial killers. Oh, child abuse can be traced to evolutionism? Where does love and compassion come from: 'free will', or evolution? How come even animals display clear signs of compassionate behavior? Maybe behavioral psychology in an evolutionary context provide the better answer. BTW how free is our will? Who can laugh, cry, be depressed, exalted, hungry or sleepy, by will alone? Why isn't our will free, in spite of the claims that we have a free will? I can stop my breathing by will alone, at least for a while but it takes no will to keep breathing. Maybe will, free or not, is a subject that require proper study if we really want to know?Cabal
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Maramusa: Sal Thank you for clarifying that you were not sincere when you claimed not to be associating evolutionary theory and degenerate character. Would killing a rival potentially give me some reproductive/survival advantage? Sure. I can also gain survival/reproductive advantage by working cooperatively with my community to ensure adequate food supplies and protection from danger. Are you actually suggesting that Ms. Bishop (allegedly) killed in order to obtain some benefit from an evolutionary standpoint?
Maramusa,
Thank you for clarifying that you were not sincere when you claimed not to be associating evolutionary theory and degenerate character.
I was not arguing belief in evolutionary theory necessarily implies a degnerate character, however that not preculde that evolutionary processes will ensure the perpetuation of degenerates. For example long before Darwinism was an accepted belief, there were degenerates like Ghengis Khan. He was an alpha male that killed his competitors and then mated with their widows. By the standards of evolution, he was reproductively successful. I gave examples in the animal kingdom that reflect this principle. Now it would be hard to argue that Ghengis Khan or the examples given of alpha males are Darwinists!!!! Thus your complaint against me is misplaced. One does not have to be a Darwinist for evolutionary forces to make them a killer.
Maramusa: Would killing a rival potentially give me some reproductive/survival advantage? Sure.
So things like new proteins, new behaviors which confer survival advantage are natural and part of Darwinian processes. So is the propensity to mark out territory, to take resources from fellow individuals (like food, mates, tenure positions) be as natural as a giraffes neck? If this bleak picture is the way life is so be it. There are lots of truths that are upleasant in science (like say the eventual death of the universe). However, my issue with the Clergy Letter project is that they are being disingenuous, misleading, and self-contradictory. Why pick Darwinian evolution to celebrate science. Why not pick the second law of thermodynamics to preach on? Or how about the first law? Or how about the field of chemistry? The Darwinian conception of reality hardly makes one think of God, imho. Thus the clergy project rather than promoting science is shilling for Darwin. Nothing wrong with shilling for Darwin. But at least be honest about it and self consistent. As I said, Dawkins is more philosophically consistent than the members of Clergy Letter project. It just so happens, Amy Bishop was part of the Clergy Letter Project. Her membership only helps highlight the strange and self-contradictory nature of the Clergy Letter Project.scordova
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
When humans kill other animals is it murder or just dinner? If another animal kills a human is it murder or just dinner?
The answer is trivial. Just look up how 'murder' is defined.hrun0815
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Do you see the problem with your line of argumentation?
Nope. The existance of those rare proteins is not explained by evolution. Only their increase or decrease in frequency in the population. But what do you care? The reason for your OP (and many similar posts) is blatantly obvious. You know it. I know it. And most everybody commenting in this thread knows it.hrun0815
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
I asked:
Given what you know about Darwinism, do you disagree with Buss’s inference from evolutionary theory?
murder is the product of evolutionary forces and that the homicidal act, in evolutionary terms, conveys advantages to the killer.
Serversky responded:
Yes.
To educate our readers, can you offer reasons why you disagree. Buss seems keenly insightful. I'd like to see reasons from evolutionary theory as to why he is wrong. Thank you by the way for responding.scordova
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
hrun: Murderers are exceedingly rare (either looking at just humans or among the whole animal kingdom).
So are new complex proteins emerging in an existing species today (in fact they are rarer than murderers). Yet that doesn't prevent Darwinists from declaring that Darwinian processes were definitely responsible. Do you see the problem with your line of argumentation? :-)scordova
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
When humans kill other animals is it murder or just dinner? If another animal kills a human is it murder or just dinner?Joseph
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
btw, I must add that these murder rates dramatically go up when you factor in the crimes associated with all the wars that are now and have been going on for awhile now.JPCollado
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
hrun0815: "Murderers are exceedingly rare" I imagine you are basing this claim on carefully researched statistics. What are the numbers for, say, Mexico, Colombia, or the more than forty countries in Africa?JPCollado
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
hrun0815: "Murderers are exceedingly rare (either looking at just humans or among the whole animal kingdom)." Again, murder has no meaning to the rest of the animals. It is almost a non sequitur.JPCollado
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Only humans are capable of committing murder as we are the only beings imbued with and possessed of a moral constitution. The rest of the animal kingdom is bound by instinctive forces beyond the control of reasoned judgment and so the subject has no relavancy to them.
Fine, give all the other animals a free pass. It doesn't change the argument: Murderers are exceedingly rare (either looking at just humans or among the whole animal kingdom).hrun0815
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
“map of the US” –> World Map “16,500? –> 167,000
Ahh, thanks for strengthening my point. So only 0.0025% of all people in the world are murderers. The behavior is even rarer than I indicated in my previous post. So the answer can be give even more emphatically: Murder is most certainly not a normative behavior of human beings.hrun0815
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Can you tell us the distinction between the two?
I have attempted multiple times: One is the 'normal' behavior of the species (i.e. majority of people don't go around murdering people) to the 'abnormal' behavior (i.e. some rare subset of people does go around murdering people). It's not difficult to understand.
Really, thats just brilliant. So not committing some act is explicable by evolution, yet commiting that same act is not explicable.
Thank you. But really, it's again not that difficult to understand. For example, there are some behaviors of physical objects that are explicable by gravity, but other behavior of physical objects are not. Does that bother you as well?
(And hey, what a great insulator from having to address any potentially awkward questions).
What type of awkward questions would one ask? The same type of awkward question one can ask of gravity after a person falls off a mountain and gets their head bashed in?
So you’re suggesting that evolutionary phsychologist such as Mr Buss should stop wasting time with evolutionary theories about about murder and start looking for brain clots and such instead? And if we find an errant spouse dead in neighbor’s bed in the middle of the night, look for brain clots! And if we come upon a desceased individual with a bag of fake cocaine in an ally, we should look for brain clots again.
That's not what I said. How come I have to continuously point out to you that you are not reading properly what I am saying. I gave you an example of what physical causes of a behavior might be excluded from an evolutionary explanation (i.e. the formation of a blood clot acting on a brain).
Now, is murder a normative behavior for humans? The only reason I am asking is because you failed so miserably at the question above, I thought I’d throw you a bone and you can tell us how many people that 16,500 murders each year represents by population and argue that its not “normative” at all.
Let's say that all 16,500 murders are committed by different individuals. In my book that seems to say that approximately 0.0054% of the population of the US are murderers. So the answer is clear: Murder is not a normative behavior of this population. How could you possibly argue otherwise? (And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the 16,500 murderers also do not go around murdering people for the vast majority of their life.) But thanks for throwing me a bone.hrun0815
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Barb @ 19: "I’ll be curious to see if there’s as much outrage over this act of violence as there is when a supposed Christian or religious person commits a crime." scordova @ 29: "Darwinism has overtaken culture not merely because Atheists have promoted it, but rather because Clergy have sanctioned and encouraged it!" Matthew J. Murray in Arvada, Colorado. Google it. Apparently the Clergy at Youth With A Mission have something to answer for.rocketsurgeon
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Found a sock did ya? Nice.Upright BiPed
February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply