Columbine and evolution

[Strathos]

Since a certain person likes to mention these in the same breath, and somehow equate them, no matter how wrong and offensive it is, I figured I'd make a thread to actually examine this issue.

First of all, and I'm sure everyone has heard this before, even if some keep ignoring it, evolution is not a code of ethics, any more than gravity or germ theory is. The ToE merely describes how organisms adapt and diversify, and does not suggest or prescribe any kind of pattern of behavior. Just like the Theory of Gravity doesn't encourage you to push people off cliffs and sabotage all airplanes and spacecraft, or the Germ Theory of Disease doesn't encourage you to stop people from using antibiotics.

However, even if the ToE were prescriptive, what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did, from an evolutionary perspective, was one of the worst possible decisions they could have made.

If the "purpose" of evolution is to survive and reproduce, ensuring your genes continue on, then heading into a situation where you are most certainly going to die or be locked up for the rest of your life, and then killing yourself, is the exact opposite of that. They will never reproduce and have descendants, their genes will never be passed on, their evolutionary line is dead.

If someone actually got it into their head that evolution was a system of ethics and behavior to follow (which it is not), the logical conclusion would not be to go around killing people, it would be to reproduce as many times as possible, with as many partners as possible (probably in this day via donating sperm or eggs for IVF procedures). Of course there are objections to living such a lifestyle, but that's academic, since (AFAIK) no one actually believes the ToE gives them any kind of moral or behavioral imperative.

 

[Michael]

Since a certain person likes to mention these in the same breath, and somehow equate them, no matter how wrong and offensive it is, I figured I'd make a thread to actually examine this issue.

First of all, and I'm sure everyone has heard this before, even if some keep ignoring it, evolution is not a code of ethics, any more than gravity or germ theory is. The ToE merely describes how organisms adapt and diversify, and does not suggest or prescribe any kind of pattern of behavior. Just like the Theory of Gravity doesn't encourage you to push people off cliffs and sabotage all airplanes and spacecraft, or the Germ Theory of Disease doesn't encourage you to stop people from using antibiotics.

However, even if the ToE were prescriptive, what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did, from an evolutionary perspective, was one of the worst possible decisions they could have made.

If the "purpose" of evolution is to survive and reproduce, ensuring your genes continue on, then heading into a situation where you are most certainly going to die or be locked up for the rest of your life, and then killing yourself, is the exact opposite of that. They will never reproduce and have descendants, their genes will never be passed on, their evolutionary line is dead.

If someone actually got it into their head that evolution was a system of ethics and behavior to follow (which it is not), the logical conclusion would not be to go around killing people, it would be to reproduce as many times as possible, with as many partners as possible (probably in this day via donating sperm or eggs for IVF procedures). Of course there are objections to living such a lifestyle, but that's academic, since (AFAIK) no one actually believes the ToE gives them any kind of moral or behavioral imperative.

There was a pretty good special on Hitler recently that actually gave me the creeps. I can't recall the title but had something to do with the cultish and weird beliefs that the inner Nazi circle ascribed to. They did see it as an evolutionary imperative to 'wipe out' inferior forms of DNA (the "Aryan" race being the most advanced of course). Jewish DNA was placed at the bottom of that hierarchical list, and the Nazi's were in fact intent on "purifying' the gene pool by wiping out all the Jews on Earth. More than creepy I tell you.

 

[Strathos]

That's what happens when you appropriate and twist scientific ideas to support an agenda.

 

[Chesterton]

That's what happens when you appropriate and twist scientific ideas to support an agenda.

"Appropriating" and "twisting" are two different things. "Employing" and "using" are other things. Didn't humans create dogs from wolves?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since a certain person likes to mention these in the same breath, and somehow equate them, no matter how wrong and offensive it is, I figured I'd make a thread to actually examine this issue.

Does this certain person equate Klebold & Harris as animals, and not so much as products of evolution?

If he's the one I'm thinking of, I believe he stresses that they -- as animals -- either went feral, or were born with a lion's disposition of killing others (including their own), but forced by society to live as doves.

 

[Split Rock]

Does this certain person equate Klebold & Harris as animals, and not so much as products of evolution?

If he's the one I'm thinking of, I believe he stresses that they -- as animals -- either went feral, or were born with a lion's disposition of killing others (including their own), but forced by society to live as doves.

And internet scientists are still "scratching their heads" trying to figure out how they went "feral."

 

[AV1611VET]

And internet scientists are still "scratching their heads" trying to figure out how they went "feral."

Er ... no.

Didn't this "certain person" say Internet scientists were scratching their heads, wondering why Klebold & Harris did what they did; when the answer should have been obvious? they went feral?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Er ... no.

Didn't this "certain person" say Internet scientists were scratching their heads, wondering why Klebold & Harris did what they did; when the answer should have been obvious? they went feral?

Humans don't really go feral, we aren't domesticated. The only "feral" people are those that have lived for long periods of time without human contact, but it isn't truly becoming feral, but suffering severe psychological damage because humans, as group creatures, don't tolerate isolation very well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans don't really go feral, we aren't domesticated.

Um ... from Merriam-Webster:

Domesticate:

: to breed or train (an animal) to need and accept the care of human beings : to tame (an animal)

: to grow (a plant) for human use

: to train (someone) to behave in an appropriate way at home (such as by using good manners, being polite, being helpful, etc.)

How can we domesticate our relatives (animals), if we're not domesticate?

The only "feral" people are those that have lived for long periods of time without human contact,

Says who?

but it isn't truly becoming feral, but suffering severe psychological damage because humans, as group creatures, don't tolerate isolation very well.

Again, forcing two animals that are wild to live as doves is not creating a pressure cooker?

 

[Loudmouth]

"Appropriating" and "twisting" are two different things. "Employing" and "using" are other things. Didn't humans create dogs from wolves?

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that we should wipe out humans that we deem inferior. Nowhere.

You might as well claim that Atomic Theory states that we should drop atomic bombs on everyone, or that the Germ Theory of Disease says we should infect everyone with HIV.

Scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

[CabVet]

Er ... no.

Didn't this "certain person" say Internet scientists were scratching their heads, wondering why Klebold & Harris did what they did; when the answer should have been obvious? they went feral?

If the theory of evolution is wrong (what you constantly state), how can it explain Columbine?

 

[AV1611VET]

If the theory of evolution is wrong (what you constantly state), how can it explain Columbine?

You mean, if it's right?

I'm trying my best to explain Columbine from an evolutionist perspective.

As I understand it, psychiatrists were disappointed when Klebold & Harris killed themselves, because now, we won't know what triggered their stampede.

Well, for the record, I offer two viable theories as to what triggered it:

1. They simply went feral.
2. They caved into the pressure of having to live like doves, when they were hawks.

 

[andy b]

You mean, if it's right?


Well, for the record, I offer two viable theories as to what triggered it:

1. They simply went feral.
2. They caved into the pressure of having to live like doves, when they were hawks.

or number 3 they no longer feel connected to society,nature or the universe on any spiritual or meaningful level.They see it as themselves against the world when in reality they are the world.Hold on to your hats because as more and more people become disconnected with there fellow human beings on any compassionate level these incidents will increase.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hold on to your hats because as more and more people become disconnected with there fellow human beings on any compassionate level these incidents will increase.

I have to agree.

Signs of the times and all.

 

[Split Rock]

Er ... no.

Didn't this "certain person" say Internet scientists were scratching their heads, wondering why Klebold & Harris did what they did; when the answer should have been obvious? they went feral?

But they didn't go "feral." They went homocidal. Social animals (like humans, elephants, chimpanzees, etc.) do not normally behave the way they did... even if they are not domesticated.

 

[AV1611VET]

Social animals (like humans, elephants, chimpanzees, etc.) do not normally behave the way they did...

Klebold & Harris were behaving normally, were they?

 

[Lost Angel]

I fail to see the connection with evolution. The columbine killers did not go feral. In all likely hood, it was environmental, psychological, or some traits thatsome deem as evil.

Acts like these, while uncommon, are deviant traits that have existed for centuries in our populations. Why isn't clear, but it doesn't seem to follow the ideas of successful evolution.

Feral does not mean rampant killing. Rather, it is a trait of other animal not having the association with humans that deems domestication.

This poster is bent on smearing science, whether he has solid footing or not. His repeated droning of the same supposed scientific failings seems to be an attempt to elicit irritation and attention.

 

[CabVet]

You mean, if it's right?

I'm trying my best to explain Columbine from an evolutionist perspective.

As I understand it, psychiatrists were disappointed when Klebold & Harris killed themselves, because now, we won't know what triggered their stampede.

Well, for the record, I offer two viable theories as to what triggered it:

1. They simply went feral.
2. They caved into the pressure of having to live like doves, when they were hawks.

No, I mean if it is wrong. Explain it from a creationist perspective.

P.S.: You are not offering theories. Actually, I wouldn't even call those hypotheses, they are just ideas.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Acts like these, while uncommon, are deviant traits that have existed for centuries in our populations. Why isn't clear, but it doesn't seem to follow the ideas of successful evolution.

Actually, it does, to an extent. Humans are a warlike race, ever wondered why there aren't different subspecies of human or apes that are more like us? There used to be, but they competed with ancient humans for resources, so humans killed them off by direct murder or by driving them out of their lands until they starved to death.

Sociopaths are useful in times of war, after all, that lack of feeling when killing someone would definitely be beneficial during a battle.

What a lot of creationists fail to understand is that more than one specific variation of each trait can be advantageous in the same circumstances.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean, if it's right?

I'm trying my best to explain Columbine from an evolutionist perspective.

It is the same as the gravitationalist perspective.