VaTech Killer expresses admiration for Columbine Darwinists Darwinism Apr 192007 From Va. Tech awarding degrees to victims [Cho] refers to “martyrs like Eric and Dylan” — a reference to the teenage killers in the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999. Related PostsDarwinian Fizzbin (The Third Revolution)New Movie Exposes Darwinist Assaults on Academic FreedomKCFS supporter speaks his mindPoor PZ! He tried. He “really, honestly tried!”Nietzsche’s Madman : Finding Darwin’s GodThis Blog is Shutting DownThe Anatomy of Darwinism (Part 3)A Breath of Fresh AirAllen MacNeill stands up for the rights of his pro-ID studentsID, an Argument from Ignorance but Darwinian Ignorance is BlissThe Anatomy of Darwinism (Part 2)Neanderthal is Still an Evolutionary Dead EndThe Good, The Bad, and The UglyThank Goodness!!! Daniel Dennett has an Epiphany…sort of.Does Empirical Evidence Apply to Darwinists?Darwinian FizzbinAvida, hasta la vistaEvolution and the ID WarsExciting Books in 2007Intelligent Design compared to Darwinism 8 Responses to “VaTech Killer expresses admiration for Columbine Darwinists” Zachriel says: April 19, 2007 at 10:20 am VaTech Killer applauds Columbine Darwinists Is that really necessary? Isn’t it bad enough already? “I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people,” Cho Seung Hui, 23, said during a rambling video message that he mailed to NBC News after killing his first two victims. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.1uPhsHJrFM&refer=home I would think that Cho’s biology is as mistaken as his theology. scordova says: April 19, 2007 at 5:38 pm Welcome to our weblog Zachriel. Though we disagree on many issues, I’m appreciative of your presence. I had nothing to do with what happened to you at UD, and I hope you will feel welcome here. Salvador JoeG says: April 20, 2007 at 4:34 am What happened to Zachriel at UD was of his doing. Zachriel says: April 20, 2007 at 5:36 am scordova Welcome to our weblog Zachriel. Thanks, Salvador. Every forum has a right to moderate as they feel fit. However, it is humorous when commenters on Uncommon Descent express wonderment that no one steps forward to refute their arguments. “We have yet to see anyone here who can defend it.” “I have yet to see a coherent defense of Darwinism. No one has presented one here” “The people at UD believe in their position and are willing to discuss it. That is the challenge. An open discussion…Find someone and have them open a dialog. They will be treated with respect. It will also be a breath of frresh air.“ Also, I hope you understand why I consider your thread topic to be ill-thought. Thrice banned by Uncommon Dissent. JoeG says: April 20, 2007 at 5:57 am However, it is humorous when commenters on Uncommon Descent express wonderment that no one steps forward to refute their arguments. What is humorous is watching people try to refute ID when it is obvious they are ID ignorant. To refute ID all one needs to do is provide the data that supports the sheer dumb luck scenario. Good luck with that. And it is true that the Columbine killers worshipped natural selection… scordova says: April 20, 2007 at 6:43 am Zachriel wrote: Thanks, Salvador. Every forum has a right to moderate as they feel fit. However, it is humorous when commenters on Uncommon Descent express wonderment that no one steps forward to refute their arguments. Agreed. Controversy is good for publicity. The people I would ban are the spammers like PvM. The questions and objections that I welcome are those that need to be answered. I felt many of the objections you raised were fair and I considered your conduct at UD to be temperate. However, I’m not in charge there. You are free to offer your criticism of my ideas, and I never recall that you ever attacked me personally, and for that I salute you. Furthermore, the role of weblogs for me is to help clean up some of the things I’m working on, to get it some editorial polish and to help me get a sense of how it might be improved. For example, I’m helping others and myself of things were trying to get published for high school and college students. The internet is a way of seeing what are the best ways of stating an argument. 30% of the material I throw out could be substantially improved, and after arguing with the crtics it is usually cleaned up. Salvador scordova says: April 20, 2007 at 6:44 am JoeG, You’re a real fighter, and I love that. We might be able to visit PandasThumb and KCFS and give em a good fight some day. I think we could take em. Salvador teleologist says: April 26, 2007 at 9:18 pm Here is an insightful article from Ravi Zacharias on this tragedy. In all of the commentaries dealing with the tragedy of Cho Seung-Hui, there is a question lurking in the shadows that we refuse to answer. In the April 20th issue of International Herald Tribune, David Brooks entitles his thoughts under the caption “Navigating the Morality Line.” He quotes the famed line from Protagoras: “Man is the measure of all things.” Then the questions begin with torrential force: But in the new science, the individual is like a cork bobbing on the currents of giant forces: evolution, brain chemistry, stress and upbringing”. At the extreme, many scientists now doubt that there is such a thing as free will” Once, Cho Seung Hui would have simply been condemned as evil”but now the language of morality is replaced by the language of determinism”. Responsibility shifts to wider forces.” In short, the killings at Virginia Tech happen at a time when we are renegotiating what you might call the Morality Line, the spot where background forces stop and individual choice ” begins”. The killings happen at a moment when the people who explain behavior by talking about biology, chemistry, and social science are assertive and on the march, while the people who explain behavior by talking about individual character are confused and losing ground. He ends his article by saying: “But it should be possible to acknowledge the scientists’ insights without allowing them to become monopolists”. There still seems to be such things as selves which are capable of making decisions.” It’s just that we no longer have any agreement about what they are.” In the commentary just below his is one titled “A Killer on the Campus” , by Barbara Oakley. She brings her excellent article to a close with the words: “This is about evil, and about how our universities are able to deal with it as a literary subject but not as a fact of life.” Think about their statements. We don’t know what a “self” means any more. We don’t know what “evil” means any more. Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.