Terrible journalist blames Darwin for school shootings

How many killers have proudly flaunted the fact that their crimes were the result of their religious convictions? It’s honestly too numerous to count, but every time such a tragedy occurs, you don’t see anyone blaming Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or other religious leaders. That doesn’t stop some shitty writers, who have a clear interest in attacking evolution, from blaming everything they can on Charles Darwin:

In America, where Darwin’s writings on morality and race have come under particularly intense critical scrutiny because of the enduring creationist debate, he has been accused of fostering moral nihilism and scientific racism, and even of promoting an ethic that found its ultimate expression in the Holocaust. Most startling of all, a connection has now been drawn between Darwin’s theories and a rash of school shootings.

Actually, the only one making this connection is the author of the piece, who seems convinced, like all creationist morons, that Darwin was somehow responsible for the Holocaust, racism, and just about every terrible atrocity you can think of. You would think humans had never committed mass genocide before Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The religious right is very good at building straw men and then tearing them down mercilessly. Darwin is one of their favorite scapegoats, and it’s not too difficult to imagine why; they fear science, and most of all the implications of natural selection. We are still the only species on this planet that refuses to accept its place in the tree of life (admittedly, we are also the only ones capable of doing so). We are apes, and no amount of kicking and screaming will change that fact. Deal with it.

The basics of evolution are much more accessible and are taught in every high school, so it should not be surprising that Darwin seems to be emerging as the inspiration for the more dim-witted schoolboy sociopath.

It seems as though the author is trying to make the conclusion teaching evolution is bad, because a few disturbed people have twisted the theory to fit their own psychopathic beliefs. Well, if we have to get rid of “dangerous” ideas, why are we allowing texts like the Bible, which condones, slavery, genocide, rape, infanticide, and the murder of adulterers and homosexuals, to exist?

This entire article tries to paint Darwin as a crusty racist who wanted the extermination of other humans. In actual fact, had this fucking scumbag bothered to read The Origin of Species, he would have remarked that Darwin himself did not advocate Natural Selection for human beings. He saw the laws of nature as entirely savage and inhuman, and he was a staunch abolitionist. Of course, there’s no reason to believe the author cares about the truth, let alone journalistic integrity, although it’s nothing compared to his flawed understanding of history:

…Truths that the founders of the United States had held to be self-evident — that all men are created equal and had certain inalienable rights — were being denied by the promoters of Darwinian science. By the end of the first World War, it was not only blacks who were deemed genetically inferior by many of America’s top geneticists and biologists, but Italian, Greek and Jewish immigrants too.

Has this fucking guy ever read a history book? Was he not aware the Founding Fathers had black slaves? Does he really think the inequity of race relations is entirely the product of Darwinian theory? It’s quite obvious these prejudices existed long before we knew all life shared a common ancestor. Natural Selection means we are all related, and anyone who twists this idea is not a true scientist, but rather, like the author, someone interested in furthering their own agenda.

This shitty writer leaves us with this closing thought:

The more sinister implications of the world-view that has come to be called “Darwinism” — and the interpretation the teenage nihilists put on it — are as much part of the Darwin story as the theory of evolution

So, he’s assuming a few teenagers who kill indiscriminately is as much a story about one of the most fundamental scientific theories in mankind’s history? Is he fucking serious? Look buddy, there will always be disturbed people who hijack an idea or ideology without properly understanding it. You’re proof that there is still a lot of learning that needs to be done from the general population concerning not only Natural Selection, but also the man behind the idea, Darwin. No, he did not “invent” the Holocaust, eugenics (that was actually his cousin, Francis Galton), slavery or racism. Stop trying to paint this brilliant (and like all humans, flawed) human being as some kind of monster. Why don’t you address the relative truth of his arguments rather than making outlandish accusations that aren’t based on any facts. For anyone interested in punishing themselves, check out this author’s latest book, which is like this article, except 320 pages long. Enjoy your torture!

(props to new TGA patron Annabel for the find)

Spread the outrage

Comments (38)

  • avatar

    Isaac

    Someone needs to get a new journalist.

  • avatar

    Carisa Hendrix

    What the Fuck! I wish atheist were more of a force so the author would experience the wave hate mail that work deserves.

  • avatar

    Mark

    “The religious right is very good at building straw men and them tearing them down mercilessly. Darwin is one of their favorite scapegoat, and it’s not too difficult to imagine why; they fear science, and most of all the implications of natural selection.”

    I think atheists are every bit as adept at building straw men and tearing them down. Not only are they merciless, many of them (including this web site and many of its commentators) are profane, vulgar, and vitriolic to boot. In fact I have been hard-pressed to find a “good” atheist web site that simply focuses on issues. All I see is fallacy-laden ad hominem arguments. To get any insight whatsoever I have to read Bertrand Russell or someone from back in time because the modern atheists just seem bitter to me. It;’s really too bad because I think some great debate could be had.

    I do not think of Darwin as a scapegoat. I think he was brilliant. I watched all of those films you posted, too. They were great. In fact I think his theories fit perfectly with creationism.

    I don’t fear science, I happen love it. I watch all kinds of science programs and teach my kids about it, too. I think creationism and evolution can co-exist.. where civil people dwell

    The implications of natural selection do no scare me at all. No science will ever be able to explain the most important thing in the world to me, and that is LOVE. Love, love, love. It’s all that matters in the long run.. isn’t it?

  • avatar

    Ace. (Annabel)

    @ Mark. If you don’t agree with majority atheist views then why the heck are you on this website, let alone commenting. Take your rant elsewhere matey.

    @ Jacob – Cheers for the mention.

    When i read this it really opened my eyes, normally i’m pretty accepting of other peoples views, despite heavily against them sometimes. I don’t fancy being bitched at and a target for ‘conversion’ so i decide not to do it to them. To find out that people have the balls to do something so disgusting and then claim natural selection and benefits to the human race…. That’s a new low to humanity. Surely we haven’t got THAT bad yet?

    The least you could do is stand by your convictions rather than blaming seemingly fruitless actions on some ‘naturalistic’ guy that hasn’t been doing anything new for quite a while (being dead and all…).

  • avatar

    Duane

    Mark,

    Have you ever read “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris? It’s a quick read and can sum-up a lot of things most atheists have issues with about religion in a polite manner.

    pdf:
    http://rapidshare.com/files/44780208/Sam_Harris_-_Letter_to_a_christian_nation.pdf

    audiobook:
    http://rapidshare.com/files/236252404/Letter.to.a.Christian.Nation-Sam.Harris.rar

    Also by Creationism do you mean the Earth is 6-10,000 years old? Or do you mean Intelligent Design.

  • avatar

    Isaac

    @Mark

    Do you know why atheists seem profane and vulgar to you? It’s because of things like this!!

  • avatar

    Liudvikas

    I don’t understand what that journalist is trying to imply. Even if everyone who believed evolution would suddenly become a sociopathic serial killer, it would not make it less true.

  • avatar

    Chris Wellons

    The “journalist’s” argument is an enlightening one, not because of what he said, but because of what he didn’t say. The “evolution is used to justify bad actions” argument isn’t an argument against the factual basis of evolution. Evolution need not be fact for that statement to be a fact (which, in this case, it’s not anyway). It’s arguing that the concept of evolution is dangerous, and so it shouldn’t ever be taught or investigated, even if true.

    So really, it’s only an argument against seeking facts that may be uncomfortable! This person is clearly admitting that they aren’t interesting in seeking truth. Using this argument is simply saying that it’s better for society believe a falsehood than know a truth, if that truth is discomforting.

  • avatar

    Jim

    “”"”. All I see is fallacy-laden ad hominem arguments.”"”"

    So are you done commenting on the thread that showed you to be a completely fallacious sophist attempting to lord superior grammar over others, mark? Would you care to respond to that line of conversation again?

  • avatar

    Jim

    A superiority that doesn’t exist, i might add.

  • avatar

    arj919

    I understand the desire to post and refute the outlandish statements in this article, but I just get worried that posts about the article create more attention and traffic than it deserves. The line is difficult to draw when to ignore stupidity and when to call it out. Just a concern, I found your post interesting.

    @Mark
    I don’t doubt many atheists exist that throw verbal assaults at others are around. I have used poor word choice in weak moments. You must understand the frustration of having to debate creationism, when all its basic ideals have been rendered completely false for generations. Scientists won’t even debate these issues because they feel it is ridiculous. Also, you are wrong Mark, creationism absolutely cannot coexist with evolution. Religion can coexist, but not creationism.

  • avatar

    cynic

    @mark
    “No science will ever be able to explain the most important thing in the world to me, and that is LOVE.”

    i’m pretty sure science and even common sense has explained LOVE

  • avatar

    cynic

    This article is exactly why i hate the term ‘Darwinism’

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    @arj919 I think you bring up a good point, but I shudder to think of what would happen if we really did ignore this kind of thing. Appeasement is rarely the answer…

  • avatar

    cynic

    @mark
    “It’s really too bad because I think some great debate could be had”
    this is the debate and so far you’ve been complaining about the other side being too mean.
    How about you lay down some facts to go along with
    “I think his theories fit perfectly with creationism”
    i really would love to know exactly why you think rthat

  • avatar

    Mark

    “i’m pretty sure science and even common sense has explained LOVE”

    Nope, it sure hasn’t. Hasn’t even come close. Science can’t explain the conscience or the genesis of morality either. It also can’t offer a CAUSE for the universe… which is amusing at best considering science depends on cause and effect for everything.

    Jim, as for “lording grammar” over people, I’m sorry, I thought I was amongst intellectuals here. I will tine down my word choice in the future. Sorry if I lost you

  • avatar

    Mark

    Curious: do we know the name of the author of this site, or is he too anonymous? I have found very few sites with authors who are willing to divulge their identity. I wonder why that is..?

  • avatar

    arj919

    @Jacob Fortin
    I agree, but intelligent discussion on evolution ended long before I was born. I guess I just get bored arguing with people that choose to ignore facts. The discussion becomes rather childish. You can’t disprove something when the person you argue with tells you – you just have to have faith. I appreciate the effort of the post, I just wish we weren’t discussing these things anymore.
    Thanks for the response.

  • avatar

    Jim

    “”"”Jim, as for “lording grammar” over people, I’m sorry, I thought I was amongst intellectuals here. I will tine down my word choice in the future. Sorry if I lost you”"”"

    The arrogance is astonishing.

    I’m referring to your failure to understand the meaning of the word ‘profound’, and subsequent attempt to point out a grammatical error that didn’t exist. Do you remember that?

  • avatar

    Jim

    That’s why i said “attempting to lord superior grammar over others”… Attempting and failing.

  • avatar

    Jim

    Please, feel free to continue discussion in that topic though… Here’s the link in case you lost it. http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2009/11/hitchens-and-fry-massacre-their-opposition/comment-page-1/#comment-8844

    If as you claim you truly do seek great debate and not fallacy-laden arguments, and you’re not someone who will resort to immature and poorly-hidden attempts goading, you’re doing a good job of making yourself look like a hypocrite. Prove me wrong and give me a pleasant surprise.

  • avatar

    arj919

    @Mark
    I noticed you didn’t respond to my comment. Please refute my argument with facts. Please explain how creationism and evolution coincide.

  • avatar

    Isaac

    @Mark

    Love is expalined through science as a chemical reaction in the brain. If you don’t love people, you’re less likely to reporduce, so we need love as an evolutionary trait.

    Morality can be explained through common sense too; If everyone recked chaos among everyone else, then that wouldn’t be good for the species. The thought prodcess would have gone something like this: ‘I don’t want my stuff to get stolen by an immoral crazy guy, or get killed by him or anything, so I’m going to find other people who share this need for law, and we’re going to live in a land of morals.’ god isn’t mentioned, and he doesn’t need to be.

    And the site’s authour is Jacob Fortin. He isn’t anonymous, and out of the four atheist blogs I visit, I have never seen an atheist blog where the authour is anonymous, not that that would prove anything.

  • avatar

    cynic

    @mark
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Chemical_basis
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
    i’m also very confident that amazon.com wll have dozens of titles relating to the subject.
    So just because you choose to ignore the scientific explanations of love and morality doesn’t mean they don’t exist

    “It also can’t offer a CAUSE for the universe… which is amusing at best considering science depends on cause and effect for everything.”
    god of the gaps. that’s kind of an ignorant statement from someone who watches lots of ‘science programs’

  • avatar

    Kevin O'Leary

    I was expecting the writer to be torn a new one in the reader’s comments, but was appalled to see that there was plenty of support for the article.

    Maybe the recent poll concluding that the majority of people in the UK want Creationism taught alongside Evolution in schools was accurate…

    Horrible, horrible, horrible.

  • avatar

    Zac

    How is Jacob anonymous? He’s repeatedly told you directly that if you don’t stop telling people how to “properly speak” than he will ban you. How is that not coming out and saying, “Hey, I run this place, you know?”

  • avatar

    Heidi

    Wow. On multiple levels. First of all, the idea that religion is attempting to poison the UK as badly as the US, disturbs me. Whip up a bunch of anti-venom, Brits, because you definitely don’t want this.

    Second, damn. Mark, you’ve sure got some issues. Why are you here? Really? I rarely comment here, but I come here because I am, in fact, an atheist, and I am interested in issues that affect us as a group. I don’t come here to listen to the same old broken record of religion. You sling all kinds of insults at atheists, bitching and moaning about how you feel we act. Well, here’s a metaphoric suggestion. Quit knocking on my door at 8:00 on Saturday morning, and I’ll quit slamming it in your face. How many atheists show up at religious sites and complain about religious people’s incivility? And how long would the religious site owner(s) put up with it if we did?

  • avatar

    arj919

    @Heidi
    your better than this….someone will always be stupid….let him say his peace, even children know he’s an idiot

  • avatar

    arj919

    thank you everyone, I feel there is a future

  • avatar

    Spector567

    @ mark

    There is one great thing I’ve noticed about christian blogs or article sites….. The usually don’t allow comments. I know I’ve looked.

    And when you are the most discriminated against minority in the united states. It causes some annoyance.

  • avatar

    RePete

    Mark said…”No science will ever be able to explain the most important thing in the world to me, and that is LOVE. Love, love, love. It’s all that matters in the long run.. isn’t it?”

    Ummm, no, Mark. It actually isn’t. (I can’t find a “roll eyes GIF” big enough to punctuate this comment.

  • avatar

    shelby

    all ya`ll should just chill opinions arelike buttcracks evryone will have one!

  • avatar

    shelby

    all ya`ll should just chill opinions arelike buttcracks evryone will have one! yeah religon matters but is it thta big of deal to where you have to argue about it! the end times are here so you should be focusing on where your at not others!

  • avatar

    J. N. Hudson

    One of the most baffaling, and indeed infuriating parts of this “Darwinism cause nihilism, eugenics, and The Holocaust” propaganda is the irrefutable FACT that evolutionary theory neither begins, nor ends with Charles Darwin. What Darwin’s opinions were on matters of race, religion, sheepfucking, or anything else are abso;utely bloody irrelavent. The scientific theory of evolution is not based solely on Darwin’s thoughts, opinions, or writings, and has itself “evolved” for lack of a better word, in the 150 years since it was proposed.

    “he has been accused of fostering moral nihilism and scientific racism, and even of promoting an ethic that found its ultimate expression in the Holocaust”

    For once I’d like one of these evolution deniers to explain just how a scientific theory, that has nothing to do with, nothing to say about, and makes no claims for matters of morality. Morality is a construct of cooperative society and is neither handed down from on high, or denied by evolutionary theory. As for the frankly libelous claims lobbed at evolutionary biology and Darwin himself, they are simply self debunking for anyone who knows even the dasics of evolution. The assertion of “scientific racism” is based in, likely willful, ignorance, science doesn’t turn men into racists, racists use bad science to justify their racism. And your thinly vieled nod towards eugenics and the Holocaust are equally laughable as anyone with working knowledge of evolutionary theory knows the difference between Darwin’s “Natural” Selection and eugenic’s “Artifcal” Selection.

    “Most startling of all, a connection has now been drawn between Darwin’s theories and a rash of school shootings.”

    Saying that “a connection has been drawn” between evolutionary theory and school shootings DOES NOT mean that it has, you can claim it hs until the cows come home but that will never make it anymore true than me saying that a connection has been drawn between your sheep fucking habit and the stockmarket crash will make that true.

    “Truths that the founders of the United States had held to be self-evident — that all men are created equal and had certain inalienable rights — were being denied by the promoters of Darwinian science”

    And what rights would those be? Because you DO NOT have the right to your own facts, the right to your own version of reality, or the right to never have to face an idea you disagree with.

    “By the end of the first world war, it was not only blacks who were deemed genetically inferior by many of America’s top geneticists and biologists, but Italian, Greek and Jewish immigrants too.”

    Now I know you are full of shit, seeing as how the science of genetics wouldn’t exist until decades later. Back to the point, you are essentially saying because some bigots used evolutionary theory to justify their racism, that therefore the theory of evolution is invalidated? Would you say that the irrefutable fact that people used the christian bible to justify and excuse all manner of reprehensible ideas, including but by no means limited to, slavery, racism, genocide, rape, tyranny, and oppression? If not, then why the double standard?

    “The more sinister implications of the world-view that has come to be called “Darwinism” — and the interpretation the teenage nihilists put on it — are as much part of the Darwin story as the theory of evolutions”

    Science doesn’t work that way. Evolutionary theory is a science and as such is to open to mere “interpretation”, and certainly not from peoples who’s understnding of the theory flawed by ignorance and more representative of, and likely based upon, the biblical creationist strawman description of evolution.

  • avatar

    Andrew

    Mark seems like a nice enough fellow, a little uninformed, or maybe just stuck in his views but just completely attacking the guy seems unfair. Of course if you explained in a reasonable way you’d have an interesting debate and maybe even get him on your side…

  • avatar

    Justin

    “How many killers have proudly flaunted the fact that their crimes were the result of their religious convictions? It’s honestly too numerous to count, but every time such a tragedy occurs, you don’t see anyone blaming Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or any other religious leader.”

    That’s because school shootings or other crimes aren’t consistent with Christianity. They are, however, consistent with atheistic Darwinism.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top