![[img]](/images/sml_cmi_logo.png){kind=logo}
The boy who’s proud to be a killer
Will Cornick murders teacher in front of classmates in Leeds, England
Published: 22 January 2015 (GMT+10)
The horrendous stabbing murder1 of an English high school teacher and the comments the perpetrator made afterwards are a potent reminder of the possible effects of evolutionary thinking on impressionable minds.
Some of the sickening comments the teenage student made after the killing included:
“I wasn’t in shock, I was happy. I had a sense of pride. I still do.
“I know it’s uncivilised but I know it’s incredibly instinctual and human. Past generations of life, killing is a route of survival.
“It’s kill or be killed. I did not have a choice. It was kill her or suicide.
“I know the victim’s family will be upset but I don’t care. In my eyes, everything I’ve done is fine and dandy.”1
He had previously said of the teacher on Facebook that “she deserves more than death, more than pain and more than anything that we can understand”.1
The details of the killing make disturbing reading. It happened at Corpus Christi Catholic College in Leeds, England, when the teenager walked up behind a 61-year-old female teacher, winked at fellow students and then fatally stabbed her.
The boy, Will Cornick, has since been jailed, and details of his planned attack and callous attitude were revealed in court. While it’s impossible to know what influences impacted the killer and resulted in such psychopathic tendencies, his statements that “it’s incredibly instinctual and human” and “killing is a route of survival”, have inescapable evolutionary overtones.
After all, at the heart of Darwin’s philosophy that overwhelms the education system and the wider community is the belief that we are nothing more than biochemistry—that all our thoughts, feelings and actions are simply the result of our genes and the environment.2
As well, Cornick’s statements are somewhat similar to those of the notorious American serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer who once said: “After all, if a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…”3
After the shooting massacre in 1999 in America in which teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and a teacher before turning their guns on themselves, people were asking, ‘How could they do such a thing?’4 The killers were obsessed with blood-drenched video games and violent death. They were also fascinated by the German Nazi belief, fuelled by ideas of Darwinian struggle, in a ‘master race’.5
Only a moral and legal code based on Christian morality will act as some sort of restraint to such tendencies. But once there is the justification that it’s ‘natural’ to kill, this will happen more. The analogy can be made with depression/suicide; even if depression in a culture remains at a constant level, the percentage of those who then give in to their impulse to self-destruct will be higher when people think life has no meaning and there is no afterlife.
The fact that Cornick’s attack happened at a Catholic college also speaks of the way in which much of the church has embraced evolution over the creation account in Genesis. Science, some churches say, has shown the Genesis account of creation to be wrong, so it is appropriate to take a different view.2
So, even in church-run schools children are told that man is just an animal, that death and violence are a natural part of evolution, and that ‘only the fittest survive’, so it is no wonder that young people are wallowing in utter hopelessness.5
At CMI, we argue that science and Scripture do not collide, and that there is no need to compromise either—a view which numerous articles on this website show to be entirely reasonable.2 The Bible can be trusted absolutely in what it says about earth history. And it can be trusted in what it says about everything else too, particularly that it is wrong to kill another human despite a mindset like that of this troubled individual who subscribes to the notion that ‘it’s incredibly instinctual and human’ to carry out such an act.
Related Articles
Further Reading
References and notes
- Rayner, G., Boy, 16, winked at fellow student before stabbing teacher Ann Maguire to death as she tried to flee, telegraph.co.uk, 3 November 2014. Return to text.
- Statham, D., The slippery slope, 20 October 2011; creation.com/slippery-slope. Return to text.
- Interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29 November 1994. Return to text.
- Catchpoole, D., Inside the mind of a killer, 9 November 2007; creation.com/killer. Return to text.
- Catchpoole, D., How to build a bomb in the public school system, Creation 22(1):17, December 1999; creation.com/bomb. Return to text.
(Also available in Czech).
To the extent that I have misunderstood any aspect of your comments, I regret it. Though conversely I didn't mean to imply some of the things you have understood from my response either. I'm happy to stand corrected via publishing your comments here. Kind regards.
I tend to agree that Cornick was overly influenced by naturalist ideals, and then sought to justify his actions by them. Although, the fact that he said he had to kill himself or her seems to indicate it wasn't entirely consistent with 'survival of the fittest'. Though apparently his personality seemed to change around the time he was diagnosed with diabetes, so perhaps there was an evolutionary thought pattern in regards to his implication of suicide, too.
However, I question whether being taught creationism would have prevented him from killing. I don't think so, given the obsessive, sociopathic tendencies Will showed. We'll never know, in all honesty, but I think he would have found some other way to justify his actions even had he believed in Scriptural truth and a young Earth. Not to suggest his mental state was irredeemable, just that there are plenty of ways to distort the Bible without invoking evolution.
I'm not saying I think there is anything healthy about a naturalist ideology, just that I don't see much about this case to suggest it was motivated by race or hereditary factors, so it's not exactly based upon any sort of neo-Nazi principals or something similar. It seems more like a means to defend and promote his evil act.
If he had claimed God 'told him to kill her' you would be on the defensive, instead denying any genuine connection.
As some of the comments have sought to clarify and nuance, the argument is not that being 'taught creation' is a guarantee against evil, nor is it to suggest that there are not some people more prone to violence than others--this is a reality, just as some are more prone to depression and thus suicide than others. But a strongly Christian cultural milieu (in addition to what the individual has been taught and, more importantly, believes) makes it on averate less likely that someone will pull the trigger, whether upon themselves in the case of suicide, or someone else in the case of violent predilection. The statistics in my own country bear this out strongly, as does the personal experience of having lived through the main era of ideological change in this regard in Australia.
@Cynthia C., even though the fact that people are using evolution as an excuse to murder is extremely tragic, we, as Christians must be careful and try to preserve separation of church and state. No, the Bible should not be taught in public schools, but evolution should be presented in a balanced format that stimulates thought and encourages students to look beyond the textbook and form their own beliefs. Our land does need "healing", but it's not our duty to force others to believe as we do, and it is clear that sin reigns in our world, and will continue to do so until Christ makes all things new again (read about it in the book of Revelation). Our duty as Christians is to share what we know and be a light to others.
Not forgetting, of course, that that duty includes being ready to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15) and as the apostles did, being willing to 'demolish arguments' that raise themselves up against God (2 Corinthians 10:5). And sharing the Gospel in today's evolution-soaked culture, where long ages of sin and death before Adam is assumed everywhere as 'fact' is that much more difficult because of all those 'seemingly rational' barriers to belief.
Isn't it interesting how the evolutionists squeal about Dan's comments on Richard Dawkins and his ilk? Richard, as the high priest of his godless religion, has equal responsibility to that of the killer- although as we are all sinners and in need of God's forgiveness-the young killer may well have done the same even if Christian values were emphasised in his school. But the chance of him doing this deed is increased tenfold when you have evolution in the mix. Dawkins apologists need to realise this and this was likely the point Dan was making. although perhaps a bit bluntly. The sooner more Christians reject this evolution myth and its associated millions of years the better. This myth has led many elect astray, thus fulfilling Bible prophesy on the wrong side of the ledger
@Michael M from UK: "I live in England. I spoke to a young man yesterday who told me there is no God, that we are the product of evolution and there is no such thing as absolute truth."
You should have asked him if his statement that there is no absolute truth is absolutely true.
Are you insinuating that if the Bible was taught in school this would never have happened? Just yesterday I was reading about a preacher in America who abused his children sexually AND his grandchildren. Why didn't the Bible stop him from doing bad stuff? Oh that's right, because people hurt people or vice versa, not ideologies.
As you would see from e.g. my book One Human Family, a Christian foundation in a culture is not a guarantee against individual evil. But for the culture as a whole, it makes a huge difference in terms of the likelihood of seeing either expression of that evil we all have a tendency to (as per what you would expect, on the basis of our sin nature), or its restraint, whether via sociocultural expectations or the individual themselves being more likely to be restraining their impulses. Anyone living in e.g. Australia from the 1950s onwards would be able to see the much greater lack of such restraint today. Finally, if you think that ideas don't have behavioural outcomes, if the Holocaust doesn't persuade you, think 9/11.
@Carl W. in reply to Thomas D., Germany, 23 January 2015 -you said " It's far more subtle and deeper than that, but the fruit of every tree is affected by the roots in the soil in which it grows. "
the roots are part of the tree....its actually affected by the chemicals as averse to minerals in the soil. In the past the minerals was what was naturally available. However, man has decided to 'inject' the soil with fertiliser and super foods etc., This fact is what makes MEN ALWAYS CHOOSE TO EAT OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE...OF GOOD AND EVIL. However he missed eating the fruit of the tree of LIFE.
Today is your choice - "Do YOU choose LIFE or knowledge of good/evil or right/wrong ?"
I am of the opinion that all people everywhere will choose 'knowledge' and like Adam hide behind "you put that 'sinful' tree there in the first place!!" -cop out excuse of don't blame me! -I am just following instincts! natural, fertilised, pesticides/poisoned or otherwise!
Psychopaths are not trained - they're born. There is only one entity/cause here if you are a creationist - it's three letters long and starts with "G".
If a death is what these poor lost souls ultimately want to see, I always say that I wish that they would plan to kill themselves first...and the kill those they hate. It is a such a tradegy that they feel the need to take the life of others and then their own. Those that wrote God out of the curriculum have a lot to answer for.
Thanks CMI for this article. I'd missed this news story, and even if I had've seen it in the secular media no doubt they would have left out or downplayed the evolutionary worldview issues going on here. It's my hope and prayer that more Christians would realise how a rejection of a literal Genesis is undermining the gospel and the resultant unbelief is causing havoc in the world today.
Evolution is a massive, almost hypnotic hoax. It's very puzzling that with all of the advances in medicine, transportation and other technological discoveries so many intelligent people still rely on Darwin's theory from about 160 years ago to explain life. And all of this with no logical evidence nor proof. Belief in Evolution requires more faith than believing in a Creator.
Response to Carl Wieland:
Thank you for considering my recent post worthy of a reply. To your reply I have this comment:
Darwin never completely lost his faith in what we may call a "higher power", or "God", if you will. There were times in his life when he slipped into feelings of despair and despondency, especially during his grieving over the loss of his beloved daughter. The same happens to even the very best of us Christians. Darwin did eventually renounce the beliefs which he had been brought up with and churched upon, such as many of the dogmas and teachings of traditional Christianity. Darwin's concept of God became transformed in the belief in an invisible force imbued within all creatures, a force of instinct by which they select the traits and attributes most likely to insure their
survival in future generations. Sometimes instinct makes the wrong choice. Wrong choices result in extinction. Evolution is not purposeless. It has a purpose. The purpose is to survive. One of the strongest indicators that Darwin believed in a higher power is that he never let his life to become given over to any kind of debauchery. He lived an exemplary and upright life. You have to have God with you in order to do that.
Sam,
Thanks for your reply. The real issue is not over whether it is possible to live an upright life without debauchery absent Christianity (one certainly can; I have atheist cousins who do) but ultimately over whether one believes that God is (God being the personal, infinite God of the Bible), and that He is as He has revealed, which is not a matter of the 'dogmas and traditions' of any religion but boils down to whether you accept the Bible for what it claims to be, revealed propositional truth from God. Because if it is not, then one can invent a god of one's imagining and also can define a moral life any way one wants. Why should debauchery be wrong in that case? Yes, we all feel that it is, but God has revealed that this is because we have His moral law written on our hearts.
If the Bible is what it claims to be, then by definition, it will be inerrant (because otherwise one would have no yardstick for determining which of its propositions are in error and which are not, plus of course the irrationality of assuming that an inerrant divinity incapable of lying would willingly disguise truth within a quagmire of error). So from that inerrant propositional truth, we can claim unequivocally (Romans 3:23) that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". That’s Darwin, you, me, whether involved in debauchery or not. Our righteousness, says God is "as filthy rags". In the face of His holiness, we all stand condemned. It is only as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us after we appropriate (by God's grace, though faith) His sacrifice on our behalf; the just for the unjust—that we can put on His robe of righteousness and become worthy (justified in His sight) to be received into God's heaven to life everlasting. This is love; not that we loved Him, but that He loved us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Will you grasp hold of that,Sam? Will you turn from this belief that an ‘upright life’ can possibly count in the face of His holiness, admit your lost sinful condition before God (not my judgment but His on all of us), and give up imagining that anything any of us do (or abstain from) can save us from eternal lostness? Then you will know what it is to be not some nominal vague Christian, but a child and heir of the Father’s, set free to more abundant life and eternal fellowship with Him? By the way, if you write again I undertake to respond personally, not publicly...
Under Christian law, Will Cornick may have killed, under evolution, Will Cornick may have killed. But one of these philosophies justifies and the other one condemns. Under evolution good and evil are relative terms so an evil act can be condoned. Under Christianity good and evil are absolute terms and an evil act is only condoned by false interpretation by a carnal mind. Evolution justifies evil through natural selection if it reproduces the species. Christianity condemns evil through the will of God regardless of biological observations. The carnal mind cannot understand the judgements of God.
This article is a crock of carp. I have read several books written by Charles Darwin. and nowhere in the works of his that I have read have I found any evidence of his alleged non-belief in God. I have found nothing in his writings where he says or even implies that God does not exist. Believing that evolution happens is not a mark of an atheist. There are many people who believe that God created evolution. We call this idea "theistic evolution". May God bless you all, including even all of you folks who do not believe as I do and would not agree with me on all of the specifics as to what God does and what creation is all about.
Thanks for your blessings, though as indicated in response to an earlier comment, the 'god' invoked is hard to recognize when the consistent OT history which Jesus said pointed to Him is cavalierly turned upside down. However, even though evolution (and the theological destruction of the Gospel that it necessitates if one is consistent) must be judged on its own terms and not on what Darwin did or did not believe, even your bold assessment re Darwin's beliefs requires factual correction. See e.g. Darwin's slippery slide into unbelief and Darwin's arguments against God.
Evolution is GOD at work !
Really? If so, it could hardly be stated to be the God of the Bible, as countless articles here on eg. the New Testament sin-death causality make clear. But, somehow some Christians manage to live with the massive inconsistencies, even to the extent of turning the words of Jesus upside down (see Jesus and the age of the earth). However, the atheist Jacques Monod expressed quite understandable surprise that a Christian would defend such a horrible, drawnout process of death of the unfit over countless eons as a mode of creation. Besides which, as further countless articles demonstrate, it doesn't fit the scientific facts (see Evolution's Achilles Heels).
"Dan M., United States, 22 January 2015
I wonder if Richard Dawkins and his evolutionary colleagues are proud of this young man for acting out their beliefs?"|
A very poor decision of CMI to publish an asinine and nasty comment like that. Ask yourselves a question: do any of you actually believe for a second that Richard Dawkins would be "proud" or pleased that an act of violence has occurred? If so, you have a seriously disturbed personality, and twisted views on the human condition. Richard Dawkins is a decent and kind man. I have my own opinions on creationism and CMI, but I will not articulate them here, except to say that in publishing comments like Dan M's CMI does itself no good whatsoever.
Leaving aside your particular view on that comment, it's ironic that when people think we have not published something out of fear of it looking bad for us, we are slammed for censorship, or selectivity, or whatever. If we do just go with the 'default' position, which really should be to publish most comments unless they are right off topic, misleading factually, etc. etc. then like here we get slammed for publishing it. Just think; this way readers can judge your comment and the one you decry, and who knows what healthy insights and discussion will emerge?
I can hear the nay sayers "fallacy, fallacy" Evolution plus Killing in the name of it does not make it bad. Abuse of the principle does not negate the principle. (Example Biblical spanking) And this could be argued eloquently by CMI.
Here's the one that saddens me:
What does one do when they interject God and his laws through grace that we are supposed to obey, I.e. theistic evolution? Thus surmising what was wrong with this young man was not evolution, but the missing component - God and the Bible, ugh!
Had he applied God's moral code to his life, he would not have interpreted evolution this way in his unregenerate mind.
At the risk of having misunderstood your comment, I would want to say that theistic evolution does not have a particularly good track record (to put it very mildly) of encouraging others to believe the 'moral code' part of the Bible. Which is not that surprising. After all, if the Bible (including Paul and Jesus) get it so horribly wrong about the history of how sin and death entered the universe, what credibility remains for its statements about the solution to (and future removal of) sin and death through/in Christ? Now there are folk who can somehow live with such inconsistency (cognitive dissonance?) and be Christians while denying the very foundations of the faith--but most can't. The bigger tragedy is that it is all scientifically unnecessary. The history in Genesis stacks up incredibly well in relation to the facts (absent imposed evolutionary interpretations)--see earlier comment about the Evolution's Achilles Heels DVD (and book).
Although I definitely see the evolutionary undertones in his statement, I would like to point out that the statement, "The Bible can be trusted absolutely in what it says about earth history. And it can be trusted in what it says about everything else too, particularly that it is wrong to kill another human" is false. According to Exodus 31:14-15, "Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people." To those that claim that the bible preaches against killing more than it condones it, I should point out that the bible also preaches acceptance to all, yet the few verses that say that homosexuality is a sin overrule that. I am not saying that what he did was acceptable, I am simply noting that if the teacher had worked on a Sunday then the bible condoned her death. The bible, as evolution, gives justification to kill. Isn't it entirely possible that if his troubled mind saw this passage in the bible that he would have been just as likely to kill his teacher?
Mia, i will presume that you will read the last few responses I gave and consider the 'big picture'. While a troubled mind can act upon all sorts of triggers, including verses out of their historical context, I hope you can see that we are not saying that this was a simple cause and effect. Perhaps more importantly though, we are talking about a process of evolutionary indoctrination that is almost 24/7 in our culture, not about a child hearing or reading one passage. The simple proof of the pudding is to compare the stats on this sort of atrocity back when Western societies reflected a much more strongly Bible-focused culture. If the ratio of troubled minds to normal ones was the same then as now (and if it was not, consider why this might be) then one would expect the same frequency, in proportion to the population, of this sort of thing happening. In addition to official figures, one only has to ask anyone over 60 who has lived through the decline as to what answer they would give--as one of them myself, it really is 'no contest'.
I have never read such a load of nonsense in my entire life. Will is a vicious monster, a sociopath who needs to be imprisoned for life to protect society. Given the UK criminal justice system he will be paroled in a few years and continue murdering people.
Will fits the profile of a serial killer.
The fact that evolution is taught in Uk biology classes has absolutely nothing to do with with this vicious sociopath who is a great danger to other people.
It is ridiculous to believe that because of one chapter in his biology class he decided to murder the teacher. Every kid in the UK takes biology. Do they decide that the theory of evolution gives them the right to kill someone in front of 25 or more other people. No?
I've read some of the anti evolution material. It is interesting and makes a lot of sense. But really, one chapter in one class caused the kids to kill the teacher? The writer did the anti evolution cause no good when he wrote this nonsense.
I just noticed that you "select" comments for publication. I assume you won't select mine because I don't agree that one chapter in a biology class caused this murder.
I doubt Will was a good student or pondered the theory of evolution when it came up in biology. He probably slouched in the back of the class and paid no attention whatsoever. Given the type of vicious sociopath he is he may have skipped school the 2 days evolution was taught.
Margaret, if you see the earlier responses I gave here, I hope you will have a better understanding of the argument. If you read the article carefully, it is not denying the likely sociopathic makeup of this disturbed individual. It is all about the removal of moral restraints in the social milieu that comes from progressive indoctrination in evolutionary thinking (which does not require one to even pass biology in school) making it more likely that such disturbed individuals will give way to their impulses. Hence the article's analogy to depression and suicide; depression may be the mediate cause, but young people were seriously depressed around the time of Australia's economic disaster in the 1930s, for instance. However, the figures show that they were far less likely to act upon the feeling by taking their life than youngsters of today. A major difference was the shared belief back then that there was ultimate meaning and purpose to life (we were more than simply reorganised pond scum) and that there was accountability in eternity.
I think this article was a bit myopic. On German TV it's one program after the other about 'killing' and being 'killed'. When was the last time you observed what the some children are playing on their computers. The Computer games are even more frightening than what is shown on TV because the user avoids having to control their feelings and take responsibility for their actions, even if they are imaginary.
Why?
In a Computer game, the enemy doesn't shoot back!
Self control is one of the biggest problems facing the human race today.
And now the US Military are using drones to eliminate the 'bad guys' without these humans beings ever appearing before a Judge and Jury.
I'm sorry, but I think that Computer games or TV are more to blame for this young mans distorted ideas than his hearing about the theory of Evolution.
But consider for a moment the forces that have progressively so transformed the culture such that people's 'right' to watch pornography, violent videos, etc. (the average age at which a child in Australia is exposed to 'porn' is 11), and a woman's 'right' to kill her child even if it is only to improve her sense of wellbeing overwhelms the right of innocent human life not to be killed? (read this in conjunction with my earlier response above about social change as the Bible foundation has been progressively removed from Western societies). The change is across the Board, and consistent in country after country, as is the timing in line with when the Bible began to be undermined in 'science' education. If there is no Creator, or if that Creator did not communicate the truth about Creation in His Word, then there either are no moral absolutes, or they may not be reliably known if there are. I do appreciate, by the way, the opportunity to add some appropriate nuancing to these arguments, as it is all too easy to think we are saying in such articles that someone wakes up one morning and thinks 'I'm going to kill someone because I'm a product of evolution'. It's far more subtle and deeper than that, but the fruit of every tree is affected by the roots in the soil in which it grows.
The comments are also very similar to the "American Sniper" Chris Kyle, a darling it seems of conservative "Christians."
Referring to a comment here, I think the attempted analogy about lightning & flag poles would be considered suicide, something most people won't attempt even in a "naturalist" world. Rather, I believe Mr. Nunn's point is 'survival of the fittest', the selfish human desire to live despite the life of others. Without God, there is nothing illogical (even if immoral) in such evil justification. Suicide and selfish self-preservation (the 'justification') are two different things.
whilst presenting the evidences for creation is an important introductory step to the Gospel, a dry, intellectual debate on creation/evolution even if all the evidence for creation is presented and even if it is taught in school wouldn't have gone a long way to prevent this!
our culture is too far gone down the road of Godlessness for "creation evidence" alone to have any real or significant impact in radically changing people's behaviour;
*only the FEAR of Almighty God* stops men from doing evil.....
that means: the fear of being cast into HELL-fire by Almighty God's righteous judgement...
Jesus Christ spoke more about HELL than any-thing else....if you are not relaying Jesus' words about this important but, admittedly, uncomfortable issue then you are a *false* Christian and liable for judgement your-self...
While there are aspects here that are worth noting, and a dry intellectual debate is not what we are about, I think it's worth adding for consideration that if people are convinced that the Bible is wrong about history and science there really is not too much to worry about regarding the wrath of God on sin. (What's sin, anyway, in an evolutionary scenario; what has it done to the world in a long-age framework which implies that cancer and suffering have always been part of creation? There is also the question of what is it that has been primarily responsible for this march to godlessness in the first place? Our literature and website contains much documentation that a major shift in the attitude to the Bible bears a huge responsibility, commencing with Lyellian emphases eliminating the Flood and thus the rest of Genesis history from public life. If this line here were taken too far, it would be like someone saying in the face of a raging bushfire in a fierce Australian summer; The ferocity and extent of the blaze makes it clear that it is ridiculous to expect that banning the use of fire and matches outdoors in summer could have prevented it.'
What Jack M. doesn't seem to realize is that the word "justification" pertains to justice being carried out. God condemns sin and assures us that justice will be done. The examples he cited were all connected to punishment that could or would carried out at the command of God. What he fails to mention is that God in his mercy relents in carrying out punishment on those who repent of their sins. For those who turn from their unbelief, and the evil that follows with it, he restores them to a legal footing that declares them righteous. God never ordered the death of the innocent. Justice finds us innocent or guilty, it is not the same as rationalizing a reason that allows you to act independently of the will of God. God's warnings were worded harshly because he was serious about us acting righteously. If we wanted to walk in his ways there was no missing what believers were not supposed to do but yet we needed to see his love for us so that we might love one another.
If God is good (and He is) and you remove God out of society, then you remove the good and eventually there is only wickedness left. What else can we expect to happen in a society who pushes God out. We are just experiencing the ramifications of a Godless society. Lord help us to seek your face and turn from our wicked ways so that you may heal our land. We need revival now!
The thing is,if God does not exist and this is it.Then what would be the point in things like school and science then?Why go though this search for truth and find out where we came from if we are not going to remember any of this at all when we die?It would be pointless.Laws as well would not really be pointless,but if other animals rape and kill,then whats stopping us from doing it?Because the majority of the world thinks killing and rape is wrong?Even though serial killers know they would be put in jail and/or be sentence to death,that does not stop them from killing people.Im not saying i would want to live in a world where these laws were legal but,like i said,what would be stopping me?
@Dan"I wonder if Richard Dawkins and his evolutionary colleagues are proud of this young man for acting out their beliefs?"
that's like saying issac newton and his collegues should be proud that people are jumping off buildings because "what goes up must come down", also George from Canada you are making the same mistake that Dan makes
Except that Newton (a Bible-believing creationist, btw, and perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived) and his formulation of the laws of gravity has no intrinsic moral implications (except maybe to reinforce the Bible's notion of a consistent sovereign, Lawgiver, and hence Christ's moral code). I strongly recommend the film Evolution's Achilles Heels featuring 15 PhD scientists, with a section on the ethical and moral implications that honest evolutionists from Darwin onwards have always known are there. Dawkins concedes this in part, but it's 'just tough'.
I wonder if Richard Dawkins and his evolutionary colleagues are proud of this young man for acting out their beliefs?
"But once there is the justification that it’s ‘natural’ to kill, this will happen more"
that kind of justification is logically impossible to produce, you might as well say since its natural for lightning to strike metal poles, we should tie ourselves to flag poles during thunderstorms
I live in England. I spoke to a young man yesterday who told me there is no God, that we are the product of evolution and there is no such thing as absolute truth. He is typical of a lot of people of his generation in this country.
This article is especially relevant in light of the CBC news item of 21-01-15. It says a video "of two boys acting out various methods to kill a teacher now appears to have originated in Castlegar, in the West Kootenay region of B.C." [weblink deleted as per feedback rules] The boys reportedly aged 11 and 13 entitled their video, "How to Kill Your Teacher".
When I speak to young people's groups about evolution, I make the point that if evolution is true there is really nothing wrong with bullying; it is just the natural consequence of survival of the fittest.
Great article.
It is interesting but not surprising to note that Wikipedia have airbrushed their account of this crime by excluding all references to any evolutionary overtones. Evolution must be protected at all costs!
The stock response to such clear social markers is to descend into the illogical tenets of relativism that form the foundation of contemporary 'logic.' We are all told that naturalism is the basis for all definitions of what makes us human and all that defines 'science' and yet, when evidence comes forward, like the testimony of this damaged individual, the plea is always that it is an 'isolated case'. That the person involved is not truly representative as a sociological archetype of evolutionary thinking. But one simply cannot dismiss the totality of evidence and remain credible as a practitioner of scientific method. From Jeffrey Dahmer to Pol Pot, Hitler to Trotsky, The Columbine High School murderers, the massacre of Jews and others in the Holocaust, the extrapolation of the expanded concept expressed in the sub title of Darwin's book, is foundational to justifying inhuman thought and behaviour, the glorification of death, hatred, sociopathy, and murder. Whilst an idea does not of itself 'make' someone instantly become a murderer, where a distorted idea is believed to be unchallengeable fact in terms of what defines us as human beings it can be, and obviously has been, the facilitator of great evil. Evolution taught as fact ultimately offers a bypass for any of the nobler aspirations of the materialist because, as this sad incident relates, the individual can simply follow whatever impulse they feel they want because, in the end, the empirical law is that death is the overarching theme exemplified by Mussolini that 'blood alone moves the wheels of history.'
Is this some kind of joke?
"And [the Bible] can be trusted in what it says about everything else too, particularly that it is wrong to kill another human."
The Bible is full of justification for killing people:
Deuteronomy 17:12
Exodus 22:18
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:10
Leviticus 21:9
Isaiah 13:15-18
And many, many more.
The statement you cite from this article would have presumed that most would understand that the divine commandment not to murder (which is literally what it says) does not imply that killing is always wrong, see Genesis 9:6, but that the taking of innocent life is. The vast majority of both believers and unbelievers would I think agree that a policeman whose only way to stop a mass murderer from continuing on his shooting spree is to shoot them would not be guilty of transgressing any civil or moral law.
As sad as the thinking and actions of this young man are, I think it is more tragic that the generation older than his created the situation, and the generation older than that allowed our society to head in this direction.
I am glad that CMI are among the remnant of those who are actively promoting truth, shining a light on this sort of error and the causes of it and being prepared to cop the abuse that I'm sure that you do (as do I).
I am also glad that this can be turned around if the Gospel and God's word is faithfully preached, not just from out pulpits, but by all Christians in every sector of society, in word and deed.
We live in very perilous times and are very close to completely losing all our freedoms so carefully won over many centuries.
And for those secularists who think that there was a dark ages when the church ruled [CMI: pls feel free to insert link -and delete this] (even though it is clear that medieval Europe was probably the freest, least dark area of the world at the time as even secular historians now admit and even assert), wait until you see the darkness coming as a result of secularism and other forces that threaten the hard-fought Western freedoms that have resulted from a biblical (i.e. Christian) worldview and foundation.
Again, as sad as this story is, worse is to come unless we repent, including Christians. And including ME!
Oh Lord, please forgive us for our foolishness, arrogance, carelessness and hubris.
If my people who are called by My name, God told Israel, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and forgive their sins and heal their land. And while that doesn't apply the same way to Christians, or nations today, I'm sure it's still good instruction.
The tragedy is that their apparent belief in the Darwinian doctrine of "survival of the fittest" and therefore of "no accountability to a non-existent God" has led to their own demise.
When God asked Cain where his brother was, he replied: Am I my brothers keeper?
When asked, "Why?", they basically give Cain's answer.
I have read those comments. Where did I contradict the view that naturalism has a negative effect on morality?
My point was that Will Cornick, whose behaviour seemed to be the topic of this article, didn't really have his survival threatened by the teacher in question, or it would be considered self defense and we wouldn't be condemning his actions. It was his own psychoses that lead him to think of it that way. Had he staunchly believed in the Bible he may well have warped notions in regards to Biblical teaching, just as he had delusions about his teacher's supposed effect on his survival. A boy of this mental state wasn't likely to have developed sound doctrine regardless of whether he believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis or not.
As it happens I am a young earth creationist myself and, honestly, your response seemed a bit discouraging, or perhaps patronising. The article does mention some other cases, but it's initially about the action taken by Will Cornick and what he said at the time or in court, which is what I was talking about. So I see no problem with discussing that specifically, and I have a good reason for doing so...
The intention of my comment was to clarify that this - the murder by Will Cornick - is a poor example of the moral effect of naturalism, due to how rife with inconsistencies it is. That's why I contrasted it with neo-Nazism, which shows more direct and consistent effects on society. CMI has an 'Arguments-we-think-creationists-should-NOT-use' page, so I was hoping you would see the value of this distinction within the context of 'social evidence'.
I wasn't disagreeing with the value of Creationist teaching in the general sense.