![[img]](/images/sml_cmi_logo.png){kind=logo}
How to build a bomb in the public school system
How could they shoot and kill their fellow students? That was the question asked following the shooting deaths of 15 people at Columbine High School in Colorado, USA, on 20 April 1999. Why would young people kill, destroy and bomb in a suicide attack?
Their clothes may give a clue to the thinking of these teenage murderers. The autopsy report for one of the killers documents that on the day of the tragedy he was wearing black combat boots, a black glove on his right hand, and a white T-shirt with the inscription ‘Natural Selection’ on the front.1
What was meant by ‘Natural Selection’? One newspaper reporter has linked the T-shirt’s inscription to a video game of the same name, which is promoted as ‘a place where survival of the fittest takes a very literal meaning … it’s the natural way, it’s Natural Selection.’1 Since the Columbine massacre, it has become widely known that the killers were obsessed with blood-drenched video games and violent death. They were also fascinated by the German Nazi belief, fueled by ideas of Darwinian struggle, in a ‘master race.’2
In groping for answers to this and other tragedies, more and more people are expressing surprise and concern at the increasing glee with which many teenagers approach depictions of violence. However, this fixation with death is hardly surprising given that most public schools in Western nations now teach that violence and death are ‘natural’ evolutionary mechanisms that have operated with chance processes to produce man over millions of years.
Having been told since childhood that man is just an animal, that death and violence are a natural part of evolution, and that ‘only the fittest survive,’ it is no wonder that this generation of young people are wallowing in utter hopelessness. Even when they hear ‘Jesus loves you,’ many either do not understand what this can possibly mean in a ‘world of death and randomness,’ or it makes them more angry and bitter that such a beautiful possibility seems denied by the ‘facts’ of science. Many of these people are ‘walking time-bombs,’ without fear of any judgment after death, and primed to explode in anger and hatred at any time.
How can we Christians help defuse these ‘bombs’? Christ is indeed the answer, but in our ‘evolutionized’ society, reaching these young people requires that the church understands and utilizes the truth about our origins.
The true and accurate Genesis account of history enables young and old to understand why this is a groaning and violence-filled world—that death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering are a consequence of sin—but that God so loved the world that He provided His Son as a sacrifice for our sin. Our young people need to know that they are made in the image of God, are sinners separated from their Creator, but can be saved for eternity, and know purpose and meaning in life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Related Articles
Further Reading
Related Media
References and notes
- Denver Rocky Mountain News, pp. 4A, 14A, 25 June 1999. Return to text.
- Bergman J., Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust, J. Creation 13(2):101–111, 1999. Return to text.
(Also available in Swedish)
I can recall a few years that a woman in Israel "married" a dolphin. I kid you not.
And let us not forget that wonderful organisation in the US, NAMBLA - North American Man Boy Love Association - which advocated, well, does it really require further explanation?!
Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, and other evolutionists are quick to say that teaching kids creation is a form of child abuse. But what happened in Columbine shows just how wrong they are. Statistics show that suicide rates are higher among atheists than any other religious group. So according to the EVIDENCE, teaching kids evolutionism is child abuse and it should be banned from our public schools.
Dear Q.T., I'm not aware of official statistics that show that "suicide rates are higher among atheists than any other religious group". Can you specify your source please? That would be most useful.
Thanks.
David Catchpoole
Hi CMI. This will be my last post on this site as I am disgusted at the content.
How dare you suggest that understanding a scientific theory will lead one towards mass-murder, suicide etc. I have never met a single person who understands and believes evolution or that lacks a belief in a god, to even think about committing such heinous acts. It reminds me of a senator who resigned from the Australian parliament recently, suggesting that homosexuality leads to permitting bestiality and polygamy.
I am disgusted at the people who actually fall for this nonsense without even understanding what a scientific theory is, let alone understanding the theory of evolution itself. The writer of this article has failed to produce any solid evidence that atheism and evolution (which are NOT synonymous) cause people to commit such evil acts, yet this goes completely overlooked by the reader. The study of evolution has actually given my life plenty of meaning and purpose, unlike the false purpose that your religion instills. Relating Darwinism to Nazism, a joke that is appalling, considering the fact that Hitler was a firm foot-soldier for Christ.
Shame on you for this article.
To my knowledge, I, too, have never met anyone "who understands and believes evolution or that lacks a belief in a god, to even think about committing such heinous acts." But that doesn't mean they don't exist, as the Columbine tragedy showed. And also the Finland school shootings of 2007: Inside the mind of a killer—The Finnish high school tragedy once again shows that ideas have consequences.
You say, "Hitler was a firm foot-soldier for Christ." Graham, are you really aware of what Hitler and his government actually said and did? Jesus said (Matthew 7:16), "By their fruit you will know them." Graham, evidently such 'horticulture' is not your strong point. So, for your edification, see Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity and The Christian Nazi myth refuted.
It's important to get one's facts right. The senator you refer to most certainly did not resign from the Australian parliament. Rather, Senator Cory Bernardi stepped down as shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition in the parliament. Making the case against the pro-homosexuality 'Marriage Equality' bill, here's a part of Senator Bernardi's speech—rather lengthy but sufficient for readers here to see the context and adjudge his exact words for themselves:
"I recall that in this place only a few years ago people pushed for the same entitlements and benefits for all relationships that were then held by married couples. This was achieved. I opposed it at the time because my point was that just because people are in a sexual relationship that does not mean that they should be afforded the same rights and privileges as society affords those in traditional marriage, and I have outlined some of the reasons for that. Indeed, I advocated at the time that if it is about genuine equality and interdependency then we should advance this to interdependent relationships in which there is no sexual engagement. There are any number of those relationships, including people who live together and share bank accounts and expenses and who, for all intents and purposes, share their lives without having a sexual or physical relationship. But that was rejected, I suspect because it was not really about equality. It was not about interdependency and it was not about sharing your life with someone; it was about chipping away at the institution of marriage.
"The legislation got through and I lost that debate—you win some and lose some in this business. At that stage I was one of many saying this was another step that would undermine marriage. Today we see the next step. This is another push—it is not the first time and it will not be the last time—for same-sex marriage. Time and time again the techniques of the radicals who seek to overturn the social institutions and social fabric of our society are out of step with the priorities of mainstream Australia. No-one out there that I have come across says this is the most important issue facing Australia. There are enormous social and economic problems in this country, and this debate will not solve any of them. Time and time again the same characters seek to tear down our institutions that have been built and have sustained our civilisation for thousands of years. The time has come to ask: when will it end?
"If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender and/or if they are in a sexual relationship, then what is the next step? The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society—or any other type of relationship. For those who say that I am being alarmist in this, there is the polyamory community who were very disappointed when the Greens had to distance themselves from their support for numerous people getting together and saying they want to enter into a permanent union. They were disappointed because they were misled that this was about marriage equality and opening up marriage to all people who love each other.
"There are even some creepy people out there—and I say 'creepy' deliberately—who are unfortunately afforded a great deal more respect than I believe they deserve. These creepy people say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, 'These two creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union.' It is extraordinary that these sorts of suggestions are put forward in the public sphere and are not howled down right at the very start. We can talk about people like Professor Peter Singer who was, I think, a founder of the Greens or who wrote a book about the Greens. Professor Singer has appeared on Q&A on the ABC, the national broadcaster. He has endorsed such ideas as these. I reject them. I think that these things are the next step. As we accede to one request we will then have the next one which will be for unions of more than two people. We will have suggestions for unions of three or four people. I notice the Greens are heckling, but the point is that they misled their constituent base and there was an outcry about this. Where do we go then? Do we go down the Peter Singer path? Those that say this is the end of the social revolution have no history of being honourable about that. They continue to push and challenge our social and cultural mores. We simply cannot allow such an important social institution to be redefined ..."
I wrote this after the Virginia Tech massacre April 16 2007...seems appropriate and so obvious....
A country in Shock
33 have been killed,
by a madman, a sickman
young lives unfullfilled
Why worry? Don't grieve
no need for correction
it's the Darwinian way
of natural selection
thinning the herd to
make room for the better,
they must have been weak
put that in your letter
to the mothers and fathers
of those lost today,
A Godless society
from Truth we have strayed
Blame his parents, the school
or a video game
Say what you will
just call it by name
evil's been with us
throughout all of time
turning thoughts into action
a very fine line
You can't say it's wrong
when God is dismissed
as fairy tale, fable
or even a myth.
Isn’t this a real child abuse teaching young minds nothing-to-moral-people evolution as proven reality which removes moral restraints in young minds turning them into mass murderers?
As the evolution scientific dream story is pushed under the guise of science into schools more and more we are starting to see the real fruits of this worldview, especially in the so-called Christian countries where Jesus is expelled from schools, governments and judicial courts.
Yet the constraint that is imposed on free schools is that they can only teach nothing-to-moral-people evolution worldview and not the creation worldview.
It is sadly no surprise that they reap what they sow.
Whether or not we believe in Creation as opposed to Evolution is not a peripheral matter. Of course, Christians who hold to a theistic evolutionary view would deny that man is simply an animal, and reject the dogma of the survival of the fittest. But without realizing it, they are undermining the gospel itself. Adam brought death and judgement. The "Last Adam" brought life and and immortality to light. As all in Adam die, so all in Christ will be made alive. Belief in death before man means that we have to excise from the New Testament Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, just to begin with. Do that, and the whole Gospel is without foundation. Praise God that the foundation has been laid in Scripture once for all, and cannot be shaken by even the cleverest unbelieving evolutionist or by the sadly mistaken and misled theistic evolutionist.
" it makes them more angry and bitter that such a beautiful possibility seems denied by the ‘facts’ of science" - beautiful line. I believe my spiritual understanding just grew a few inches! Thank you for the encouragement.
Is it any wonder that if mankind continues on its path of rejecting God and falling for the atheists' view of the world that we will not only destroy ourselves but we would actually enjoy doing it? Just as well Jesus will return one day and put a stop to all this nonsense before it's too late.
Evolution
Yep another religion that worships death, again death is seen as the driving mechanism that spurs life on to evolve, those that are less worthy die out. Indeed death becomes a “good” thing as it can be used with “proper” application to “improve” humanity. But by what standard do you judge one life superior to another? What is the best method for improving humanity? Some of Evolution's most dedicated disciples were Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Pal Pot and Joseph Stalin, all who were willing to sacrifice millions to the death god of evolution for the eventual “good” of the human race. Some people might try to say that these were just some aberrations of humanity, but what are all the abortions, assisted suicides and euthanasia cases (all approved by society) but human sacrifices to the god of evolution for the “good” of humanity? But just like all the other cultures that have had human sacrifice their god demands more and more, surely leading to the total destruction of that society, and since evolution is worldwide, it will lead to the destruction of mankind as there is no one worthy enough, fit enough to survive.