School shooting in Finland

Posted 7 November 2007 by PZ Myers

There has been another tragic shooting at a school, this time at Jokela secondary school in Tuusula, Finland. It was a single gunman on a rampage, and at least seven people have been killed.

We're going to hear much more about this because the murderer claims to have carried out this act in the name of natural selection. Some of the murderer's files are available online (so far; that link may not function for long), and they portray a sick man with a distorted view of evolution that he used to justify his actions.

Continue reading "School shooting in Finland" (on Pharyngula)

16 Comments

kevinv · 7 November 2007

when a genetic computer program is used, creationists say that isn't proof because there is actually an "intelligent designer" (the programmer) behind it.

If that is the case, then this would be another example of "intelligent" design as there is a designer behind it. Same for all the other social darwinism examples they like to put forth. those are really examples of what happens when there are designers involved.

brightmoon · 7 November 2007

thanks for the heads up

hitler didnt understand evolution either

noone · 8 November 2007

Notice that file names of his pictures contain phrase "Natural Selector". Sounds like the next logical step from "cDesigner".

Paul Iacono · 8 November 2007

Bodie Hodge over at AiG wasted no time...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/08/finland-fruits-of-humanism#fnMark_1_4_1

Mike Elzinga · 8 November 2007

Bodie Hodge over at AiG wasted no time… http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/0…

Yeah, this shtick is really getting ridiculous. Blaming the evil things that people do on Darwin is the same as claiming that there were no evil things going on before Darwin. The crusades and all the holy wars that have occurred throughout history are Darwin’s fault? Did the religious fanatics of the past anticipate what Darwin would teach them and get out in front of the curve? Do the religious fanatics, the ones who bomb clinics and public buildings and murder in the name of Jesus or Allah, are these guys really doing it in the name of Darwin? If these people are so righteous, why do they use Hitler’s big lie technique? The people doing this are not religious; they are political demagogues seeking control over other people’s lives. And the people who buy this crap either are not intelligent enough to realize they are being manipulated or they have megalomaniacal aspirations themselves and are hoping for political rewards if their leaders win

Jeffrey K McKee · 8 November 2007

Science suffers from those who misunderstand science.

Hitler misunderstood both science and religion.

But he used religion, not science, to further his agenda.

Take this Hitler quote:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

This is a published statement, not an urban legend.

I'd be eager to see what evidence there is that Hitler even had a clue about the true nature of Darwinian biology. I've found none.

Best,
Jeff

scott stout II · 8 November 2007

this guy was on youtube for a while. until today, he had another account too. they guy was sick. i ran across a number of videos debating him. i have run into his comments and his videos in the past and have even replied to him once or twice. a few people who i am subscribed to often debated/trashed him. one of them even posted a "i told you so" video talking about this. in an older video he even said that this guy had problems and was the kind of person to do such an act. he even recommended contacting the FBI. although that would count for much in Finland.

it does show how destructive ideas can spread. it's and instant ticket to fame for these people. that is one reason they do things like this.

no i never knew the guy. but it is amazing and scary that this was a kid whom i had know about well before hand. its crazy cause you really never know what people will do.

Corey Schlueter · 9 November 2007

Paul Abramson, moderator for Hovind's CSE blog, commented on this saying "when persons believe in evolution - it has negative consequences!"

Bill Gascoyne · 9 November 2007

Corey Schlueter: Paul Abramson, moderator for Hovind's CSE blog, commented on this saying "when persons believe in evolution - it has negative consequences!"

If the operative word is "believe" as opposed to "accept as a scientific (that is to say, provisional) truth," he just might have something... "When men believe in absurdities, they inexorably commit atrocities."
Voltaire (1694-1778) The shooter clearly believed some absurdities. How closely these corresponded to biological evolution is, of course, open to interpretation. My own opinion would be "not very closely at all."

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 10 November 2007

Blaming the evil things that people do on Darwin is the same as claiming that there were no evil things going on before Darwin.

Agreed. But realistically they blame some immoral events or actions on Darwin. And I would conversely argue that denialism and fundamentalism facilitate such events, in lieu of that immoralities happened before such phenomena appeared in an organized fashion. So I have to look at the frequency of people using naturalistic arguments, whether correct or misunderstood, as a basis for immoral behavior, as well as the intention of rationalistic thinking. And on that score, naturalism and science wins hands down. Science is beneficial for society, denialism and fundamentalism not.

in an older video he even said that this guy had problems and was the kind of person to do such an act. he even recommended contacting the FBI. although that would count for much in Finland.

There are more nuts out on the webs than individuals can deal with. But I do think that societies can gain by early identification of risk behavior. I'm not so sure what means we have to take actions on a lone crank before he has committed himself. But for organized terror and crime, as well as series offenders, there are legal measures that works. I believe you wanted to say that FBI wouldn't count for much in Finland. True, especially as I understand FBI to be concerned with internal security (as much as this was a terrorist act). But Interpol can be involved, either by FBI or by being contacted directly. Their purpose is to coordinate such matters over borders and jurisdictions, and AFAIK EU cooperates with Interpol. But on the background I discussed above, I don't think anyone should lose any sleep by second-guessing their inaction. Especially since Finland unfortunately is as macho as US when it comes to gun control. AFAIU you can get a gun permit already at 15 (for hunting I assume), so I'm not sure the Finnish authorities would have had any legal recourse at all in this case.

Mike Elzinga · 10 November 2007

And I would conversely argue that denialism and fundamentalism facilitate such events, in lieu of that immoralities happened before such phenomena appeared in an organized fashion.

There is no question that perpetrators of the “blame-it-on-Darwin” crap are fully aware that they are engaging in demagoguery. Some of their followers many not know that there was any history before Darwin. And if they do know that there were atrocities before Darwin, they certainly do seem to be denying that their religion had anything to do with it. But at least one can try to point out the absurdity of this shtick by noting that Darwin wasn’t responsible for the killing sprees that “God’s people” went on in their Old Testament (unless one argues that God knew he was going to invent Darwin and decided to inject some “Darwinism” into the punishments he instructed his people to inflict on their enemies). Nor can one blame Darwin for the Salem witch trials, or the Crusades, or the sectarian wars in Ireland (or anywhere else in the world). It’s hard to see how anyone but the most illiterate and moronic fool can deny the involvement of religion in many historical and contemporary atrocities. The writer of that answersingenesis.org article (the one that Paul Iacono pointed out) is completely aware of his own dishonesty and knows he is stirring up anger and hatred. Apparently he thinks it works, and if it really does, its absurdities need to be highlighted. The ranting from the pulpit of the Coral Ridge Hour are more of the same. I think the leaders of these movements are fully-aware of what they are doing. The accusations are too well scripted and predictable.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 10 November 2007

Mike, you paint a very bleak picture of the "blame-it-on-Darwin" movement and its more or less thoughtful followers. But I fear it is highly accurate, it explains so much.

If you propose that highlighting the inherent absurdity and immorality of that view is necessary, while keeping away from fomenting a problematic emotional response, I couldn't agree more.

Reading your context as given now and my earlier comment, it looks to me like I was nitpicking on a logic that wasn't intended, in effect arguing against a strawman. My argument works too, but I like your sharper analysis more here. Not least because exposing absurdities is such a powerful and indeed necessary argument.

windy · 10 November 2007

Especially since Finland unfortunately is as macho as US when it comes to gun control.

I'm not sure if "macho" is the right word. There is hardly any "from my cold dead hands" mentality, gun control is universally accepted and self-defense is not a valid reason to own a gun.

AFAIU you can get a gun permit already at 15 (for hunting I assume), so I’m not sure the Finnish authorities would have had any legal recourse at all in this case.

*Before* you get a gun permit, the authorities have plenty of recourse to refuse - you have to explain why you need a gun, it has to be appropriate for the use, and you have to be a "reliable person". The Jokela shooter had first applied for a permit to buy a 9mm semi-automatic, which had been refused on grounds of being unnecessarily powerful for target shooting.

Many times the permit is given routinely (as for Auvinen's second try), but it would be legally easy to make the process more strict. In practice, the police probably don't have resources to do much psychological evaluation, though.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 10 November 2007

windy,

My comparison was very much wrong-headed. The very fact that you need a gun permit makes a difference, as you point out later. I do think there is a macho culture associated with hunting, or at least I experience it so, but you also meet hunters who doesn't belong in that subculture.

But the real reason why I happened to mention it without thinking it through carefully is probably because I was influenced by the news article describing the gun regulation, as I know remember it. The power of suggestion. :-\

Hmm. Interesting, I guess it means I read blogs more carefully than news sources. Now that I know that, I will try to change a bad habit.

windy · 11 November 2007

My comparison was very much wrong-headed.

No worries :)

I do think there is a macho culture associated with hunting

If so it's a very different kind of macho than the handgun enthusiasts, though. Hunters might even be supportive of stricter regulations aimed at "short guns".

olatunji michael akintoye · 12 November 2007

i want admission letter