Thursday, December 13, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Jail for creationist row killer

by theage.com.au

Thanks to James Bannan for the link.

Jail for creationist row killer

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jail-for-creationist-row-killer/2007/12/14/1197568239761.html

An English backpacker who killed a Scottish tourist at a NSW caravan park after a row over creationism versus evolution has been sentenced to a minimum three years' jail.

Alexander Christian York, 33, was found guilty in July of manslaughter over the 2006 stabbing death of Scottish tourist Rudi Boa, after being acquitted of the more serious charge of murder.

Mr Boa, 28, died on January 27 after an altercation with York at the Blowering Holiday Park, near Tumut in southern NSW.

The incident occurred after the pair and Mr Boa's girlfriend Gillian Brown had spent the night drinking at the Star Hotel in Tumut, and an argument broke out between Mr Boa and York about creationism and evolution.

When Mr York and the couple returned to the caravan park separately later that night, a scuffle broke out between the two men.

Mr York, who was making dinner at the time, had a knife in his hand and stabbed Mr Boa in the chest during the brief altercation.

In the NSW Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams sentenced York to a maximum of five years in jail, with a non-parole period of three years.

He will be eligible for release on January 26, 2009.

Justice Adams said he had given York a sentence at the lower end of the scale, partly because of the accidental nature of the stabbing.

He said York had no intention of harming Mr Boa at the time he was stabbed.

"The offender's act was done impulsively and done on the spur of the moment," Justice Adams said.

"I do not think the offender was aware of how seriously he had harmed Mr Boa.

"The offender is a person of good character and the offence is an aberration."

York, unshaven and dressed in prison greens, sat impassively as Justice Adams delivered his judgement.

Mr Boa's sister Debbie was the only family member in the court.

She sat at the back of the room, breaking down during the sentencing.

Mr Boa and Ms Brown had been in Tumut picking fruit as part of an around the world holiday, as was York.

AAP

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 51 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #98567 by silverlight on December 13, 2007 at 9:46 pm

This is stupid!
why couldn't they settle it peacefully?

Other Comments by silverlight

2. Comment #98569 by Cartomancer on December 13, 2007 at 9:49 pm

Did I miss this bit, or does it not tell us which side York was arguing? I assume, naturally, that as a drunken killer he was the creationist (the middle name Christian is highlighted, that's the only clue I could find) but I prefer to have some confirmation of my facts before coming up with the amusing and facetious quips.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

3. Comment #98571 by chauvinj on December 13, 2007 at 9:54 pm

"an argument broke out between Mr Boa and York about creationism and evolution."

If we are to assume that the arguments are in the respective order, than it appears as though Mr Boa was the creationist. However, it could just be poor journalism and it is the other way around.
Then again, given the title of the article "Jail for creationist row killer," then you are probably right and it is in fact the creationist who stabbed the evolutionist.

Other Comments by chauvinj

4. Comment #98572 by Aidan86 on December 13, 2007 at 9:56 pm

The victim was a biomedical scientist, arguing the case for evolution. It's a sad case, but one has to remember that the scientist allowed the argument to become physical. No intellectual argument should ever become physical and the victim it seems played a part in this.

Other Comments by Aidan86

5. Comment #98574 by mmurray on December 13, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Another version on the web says

The couple, both biomedical scientists, had been arguing the case of evolution, while York had taken a more biblical view of history.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=336784

Nice to have our prejudices confirmed about nasty creationists. :-)

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

6. Comment #98577 by mmurray on December 13, 2007 at 10:06 pm

If you go to the actual court report

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2007nswsc.nsf/6ccf7431c546464bca2570e6001a45d2/0173144ca9641164ca2573b000798f6a?OpenDocument

there is no mention of who supported what side of the argument.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

7. Comment #98579 by JemyM on December 13, 2007 at 10:10 pm

"Minimum 3 years" after killing someone by stabbing them in the chest with a knife?

Other Comments by JemyM

8. Comment #98581 by Cartomancer on December 13, 2007 at 10:17 pm

Yes, but this is creationism. If we follow Augustine and interpret those "years" as much longer periods of time like the days in genesis...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

9. Comment #98585 by Inferno on December 13, 2007 at 10:47 pm

I hope this finally settles the "Who kills more people" debate. =)

Other Comments by Inferno

10. Comment #98587 by Bonzai on December 13, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Good to know that some people are still passionate about ideas.

Other Comments by Bonzai

11. Comment #98590 by kraut on December 13, 2007 at 11:02 pm

One could argue that the creationist disproves his own statements..after all, he is left to spread his genes....
Which doesn't bode well for the sceptics.
Another kind of struggle for survival.

Other Comments by kraut

12. Comment #98596 by mmurray on December 13, 2007 at 11:18 pm

If you read the court report I posted this seemed to be more an argument over booze and cannabis than religion and the actual killing was close to bad luck.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

13. Comment #98608 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 11:44 pm

In 18th century Europe, arguments were resolved with a duel... "I demand satisfaction"

Other Comments by Rtambree

14. Comment #98629 by Zakie Chan on December 14, 2007 at 12:36 am

Wait... Answers In Genesis told me that if I accepted evolution, I would have no problem killing people. Why was it that the creationist was the attacker?

Don't tell me AIG is wrong!!

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

15. Comment #98631 by CraigB on December 14, 2007 at 12:52 am

Yes, Mr York was in fact the proponent of the creationism argument. I searched for other articles regarding this and found the following:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22924167-2702,00.html

It comes as no surprise. The argument for evolution is clearly strong, which is why creationists have to resort to such desperate and primitive measures.

Other Comments by CraigB

16. Comment #98633 by JanChan on December 14, 2007 at 12:55 am

Well, this proves that Christianity is still being spread by the sword, so much for being a peaceful religion.

Other Comments by JanChan

17. Comment #98646 by mmurray on December 14, 2007 at 1:37 am

Trying to link this sorry affair to religion is silly. If you read the court report I posted above you will find that two guys fell out in a pub. Later there is some pushing and shoving and unfortunately one of them seemed to forget he had a knife in his hand. An artery is knicked and the one without the knife in the hand dies.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

18. Comment #98668 by SilentMike on December 14, 2007 at 2:30 am

Three years? Three EFing years? Hell, why not just let him serve his sentence doing community service at a science class (there's a community service that'll never end).

The guy destroyed a life. He needs more than a short holiday. I am willing to accept a plee of insanity though. In this case we can trash the jail sentence and treat his creationism using the tools of modern psychiatry. With heavy medication and some electro-shock therapy I believe he can be cured of his debilitating dangerous delusion.

Other Comments by SilentMike

19. Comment #98669 by notsobad on December 14, 2007 at 2:31 am

Trying to link this sorry affair to religion is silly.

But it obviously doesn't make people peaceful either.

The moral of the story is: "Don't argue with idiots; they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Other Comments by notsobad

20. Comment #98687 by Swedgin on December 14, 2007 at 3:58 am

Has anyone alerted that arsehole Vox Day of this.
I mean only the other day he was promoting the idea that only athiests were capable of a blood thirsty murder that occurred at Colarado church the other day.

How does Mr " Christian Liberationist" reason that?
Was it OUR fault again ??

Other Comments by Swedgin

21. Comment #98689 by USA_Limey on December 14, 2007 at 4:05 am

This is an article about a drunken brawl gone wrong. Nothing more.

Are we to now have all and sundry articles posted just because they have the loosest possible connection with topics of interest on this site?

Sorry to be sniffy about it but jeese. If I want to read about a'holes and their moronic behaviour I'll buy a tabloid paper.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

22. Comment #98695 by mmurray on December 14, 2007 at 4:28 am

I'm with you USA_Limey. We don't even know this guy was a creationist. Have a read of the court judgement. For example:

6 As I have mentioned, the taxi's video recorder was operating and recorded a conversation between Mr Corner and the offender in which the latter expressed in sharp language his resentment of Ms Brown and Mr Boa, which focused on what he thought was their cadging of his alcohol and cannabis. It is obvious from the language he used and his tone of voice that he was angered by this.

For all we know he was feeling irritated with the other guy so chose the other side in an argument. The media are having fun making this a religious argument but the evidence is not there. I thought evidence was what we all prized on these boards ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

23. Comment #98697 by wosik1 on December 14, 2007 at 4:33 am

Someone died! Who cares what side who was on?

Seriously would it make it somehow acceptable it an evolutionist killed the creationist or would it pander to our prejudices if it turned out the creationist did it. Come on folks!

Other Comments by wosik1

24. Comment #98708 by sgr79 on December 14, 2007 at 5:21 am

Swedgin -- about Colorado -- I find it interesting that no news I've come across has pointed out that the killer, a person who was trying to find shelter, was turned away from the religious dorm, MUCH LIKE JOSEPH when he was looking for shelter with a pregnant Mary! Nevermind that it was cold with lots of snow outside... to me, that opens up the theory, ironic as it is, that the killer is a religious nut who is avenging the poor treatment of Joseph from back then to anyone who refuses him shelter...

Of course, it could always be possible that the killer is just such an obvious psycopath that no-one would let him in!

Other Comments by sgr79

25. Comment #98709 by Sean on December 14, 2007 at 5:27 am

I'm with limey on this one. Pure sensationism, and nothing to do with creationism. See the following comment from the court report that was posted.

"As I have mentioned, the taxi's video recorder was operating and recorded a conversation between Mr Corner and the offender in which the latter expressed in sharp language his resentment of Ms Brown and Mr Boa, which focused on what he thought was their cadging of his alcohol and cannabis."

Now, had this been a case of Dawkins getting in to a fist fight with Duane Gish, then yes, it belongs here. Two drunks having an unfortunate confrontation is irrelevent.

Other Comments by Sean

26. Comment #98720 by Jack Rawlinson on December 14, 2007 at 6:11 am

Mr York, who was making dinner at the time, had a knife in his hand and stabbed Mr Boa in the chest during the brief altercation...

...He said York had no intention of harming Mr Boa at the time he was stabbed.

Woah. Just how stupid do you have to be to buy that? "Yeah, I stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife, but I had no intention of harming him."

Oh, okay then. We'll let you off with three years.

MADNESS.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

27. Comment #98724 by USA_Limey on December 14, 2007 at 6:25 am

Comment #98720 by Jack Rawlinson

MADNESS.

Gor Blimey mate, it's Austraaaalia. If ya can't knife some bloke in the chest in a drunky brawl every once in a while yur not a real man see?

Other Comments by USA_Limey

28. Comment #98738 by ft77 on December 14, 2007 at 7:11 am

You're right Jack. He got off far, far too easily. How this can be called manslaughter is beyond me.

I wonder how the sentencing would have gone if the non-believer had done the murder. Off course you don't need to kill the other bloke when you know what you're talking about.

Other Comments by ft77

29. Comment #98745 by steveroot on December 14, 2007 at 7:25 am

16. Comment #98633 by JanChan on December 14, 2007 at 12:55 am
Well, this proves that Christianity is still being spread by the sword, so much for being a peaceful religion.

More like spread by the steak knife. ;-)

Why not a religion that spreads like butter? "Just like the high-priced spread!"

Better yet, Vaseline:
"Hypocrisy is the Vaseline of social intercourse"
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

30. Comment #98748 by djspideyspinster on December 14, 2007 at 7:34 am

US Limey,

I have to agree with you here. For me to try and form an opinion and force it on all creationists or all evolutionists from this drunken argument would be obsurd.

Undoubtedly there are both creationists and evolutionists who have done and will do stupid things, but that has little to do with which one is true.

Other Comments by djspideyspinster

31. Comment #98768 by rustylix on December 14, 2007 at 8:35 am

3 years? There's college gardners doing more time than that.

Other Comments by rustylix

32. Comment #98823 by Kakashi_monkey on December 14, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Did the story even say which person was the creationist and who was the evolutionist? I hope Mr. Boa was the creationist. But still, something like that doesn't call for stabbing. I alo hope Evolution vs. Creationism usually doesn't produce violence like this. (Even though it probably does)

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

33. Comment #98849 by drbreakfast on December 14, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Assuming that it was the creationist who did the killing, for me, this is another example of a believer who had to do violence (in part at least) to defend the honor of his "all powerful God."

It never ceases to amaze me that so many believers are hellbent on punishing heretics on earth now rather than waiting for their "Almighty" to dole out the purported eternal punishments. Do they not believe that "God" is capable of dealing with us nonbelievers more capably than a mere human?

Other Comments by drbreakfast

34. Comment #98853 by mmurray on December 14, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Kakashi_monkey: A couple of news stories did cover that. If you read the other comments you can find the answer. I'm not sure where that came from as it isn't in the judgement.

If you are worried about the three years read the judgement I posted above.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

35. Comment #98889 by robotaholic on December 14, 2007 at 8:35 pm

the irony (a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning )of a fight regarding survival of the fittest is beyond funny!

ha ha- i dunno who won or lost intellectually...but fighting over survival of the fittest seems appropo (timely and pertinent)somehow lol

EDIT

MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED!

EDIT

LOL

Other Comments by robotaholic

36. Comment #98933 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 14, 2007 at 11:53 pm

CraigB,

"It comes as no surprise. The argument for evolution is clearly strong, which is why creationists have to resort to such desperate and primitive measures."

Doesn't it seem a little desperate to exploit an event that really has no relevance to the validity of Christianity in order to support your own belief? Atrocities have been committed in the name of just about every philosophy known to man (yes, that includes atheism). It makes no difference whether a person justifies his or her actions based on alleged theistic precepts or atheistic ones. The end result is exactly the same: evil. Hitler was compelled by his twisted understanding of natural selection. Charlemagne was driven by his warped view of theology. The end results were the same, except that one used gas and the other used a sword.

The fact that a so-called Christian killed an atheist really carries no significance to the legitimacy of Creationism. It was a tragedy involving a phony Christian, alcohol, and a human propensity towards evil. Using an event such as this to throw dirt on another belief is un-called for, fallacious, and seems to be a rather desperate measure in itself.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

37. Comment #98936 by Cartomancer on December 15, 2007 at 12:06 am

Why is Mr. York's interpretation of christianity phony and yours isn't? Why is Charlemagne's view of theology warped and yours isn't? What discriminatory mechanism can you use to determine these things? How do you tell who has the right of it and who the wrong? The answer is, naturally, that you can't. The tenets of christianity, and indeed any religion, are purely a matter of personal preference, and theology begins with silly conclusions then sees how it can try to justify them. By Charlemagne's lights your christianity is the twisted and warped version, and he founded kingdoms, commanded armies and fostered a Renaissance. If any of the gods favours either of your interpretations, I know which one the smart money is on.

When you are a seminal figure in Medieval history maybe we will start listening to you.

Back to Mordor with you blithering troll!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

38. Comment #99136 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 15, 2007 at 5:52 pm

"Why is Mr. York's interpretation of christianity phony and yours isn't?"

Well, probably because the Bible says "thou shalt not murder". You can't really be a Christian and condone murder. What you can do is manipulate, twist, and/or take passages from the Bible out of context in order to make it say what you want it to say, but this can be done with virtually any religious (or non-religious) document.

Turning it around, why is Hitler's interpretation of evolution wrong while yours isn't?

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

39. Comment #99138 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 15, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Also, I really don't like being called a troll. It's a totally superfluous accusations as trolls are defined as those who comment on forums for the express purpose of causing disorder and strife. I don't think I've ever been mean or un-civil in any of the article discussions. If you don't like to have your views challenged in a respectful and mutually educational environment, that's not my problem.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

40. Comment #99142 by steve99 on December 15, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Atheism is not a philosophy. It can be the consequence of a philosophy.

And, there is no such thing as an atheist precept. A precept is a commandment or rule. There is also no such thing as a 'theist' precept.

Atheism and theism are simply statements of belief, or lack of belief. There is nothing intrinsic in these statements that leads to rules of action.

You can only talk about precepts when you are talking about some frameworks that include or lead to that belief state, such as Christianity.

Other Comments by steve99

41. Comment #99147 by Bonzai on December 15, 2007 at 6:21 pm

cartomancer

Why is Mr. York's interpretation of christianity phony and yours isn't?

I don't see what York's alleged Christian faith,--the article didn't say who was the creationist,--has to do with the killing. Maybe you have some insider information that we don't have, but based on the article and the verdict it seems clear that it was a case of a passionate argument getting out of hand, helped on by a bit of drugs and booze. It could have been an argument over a soccer match. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #99161 by Cartomancer on December 15, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Well, I do like having my views challenged in a respectful and mutually educational environment, but the only thing I am learning here, it seems, is quite how stubborn and ridiculous theists such as yourself generally are, and how futile and pathetic your oft-repeated "arguments" actually are. You, it seems, appear to be learning nothing at all. And your purpose cannot but be the causing of disorder and strife, given that all you are doing is trotting out tired old nonsense that we've heard a thousand times before, with the sole intention of expressing your facile reactionary antagonism. If you really had anything important to contribute to the discussion then we would listen, but you don't, so back under your bridge, troll, and cease with your ill-concieved ranting protestations!

And why should what is written in the bible be the basis for deciding who counts as a christian and who does not? Not all people who define themselves as christians treat the bible in the same way. Some few think of it as inerrant and divinely dictated, others think of it as only divinely inspired, still more think it is entirely the product of human authorship and some, such as many quakers, dispense with it entirely as anachronistic and unhelpful. It is perfectly possible to believe in a God, and even to add some of the other stuff traditionally associated with christianity such as Jesus and his son, perhaps a trinity, or the resurrection, but to think of the bible as lacking in any kind of authority at all. In fact most people who define as christians have never even picked up a copy. You can be a perfectly orthodox catholic by following papal edicts alone and never coming within ten feet of a bible, or even understanding a word of the latin it is written in. Traditionally most christians, it would seem, have placed some emphasis on this book, but that is just one definition of christianity. Why is it the right definition? Who gets to choose what the right definition is, and when were you appointed to his office? What makes bible-venerating christianity the "real" christianity but no-bible christianity inauthentic? Again, what discriminatory mechanism do you use to tell beyond mere personal preference? There is none.

As for Hitler's take on natural selection, that is immaterial as far as natural selection is concerned. Natural selection is a real phenomenon, it actually happens in the real physical world. Whether people understand how it happens or not has no impact on how it actually does happen. A person's understanding of natural selection can be said to be "true" or more properly "accurate" inasmuch as it conforms to the objective reality it is trying to describe. Christian myths, on the other hand, have no basis in objective reality against which their validity can be checked, and thus will always be a matter of subjective opinion.

Now, whether Hitler's genocides were inspired by a strange social Darwinist eugenic policy, his Roman cathoic anti-semitism, love of nordic blood myth, hormonal imbalance or a skewed idea of realpolitik I shall leave to experts in the field to determine, as far as it is possible for them to do so. Whatever the case, there is an important distinction to be drawn between the objective scientific fact of evolution by natural selection and the contents of subjective political programmes which have used it in their rhetoric. As Christopher Hitchens says, you can be an atheist and a humanist or secularist and you can be an atheist and a nihilist or social Darwinist. Atheism does not predispose one to either political position just as possession of a moustache does not predispose one to either position.

Hitler's interpretation of Darwin's theories may well have been right for all I know, but the political and rhetorical ends to which he turned his understanding differ vastly from my own. I am fine with this - political ideology is just as subective as religious ideology. I do not see the fact of natural selection and survival of the fittest to be a valid basis for political and social ideology, because I do not see the role of political and social policy as recreating the natural order in human society. In fact I see it as almost the opposite. When will theists learn that just because something happens a particular way in nature that does not make it intrinsically good or useful to us?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

43. Comment #99163 by mmurray on December 15, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Bonzai:

There are some news articles quoted above saying that York took the creationist side in the argument. Nothing I have seen says he was or claimed to be a christian. In the judgement nothing is said about who took what side.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

44. Comment #99167 by Cartomancer on December 15, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Oh, and Bonzai, I wasn't implying that the side Mr. York took in the argument is actually pertinent to the facts of the case - I don't think it is - I was just taking our troll here to task over his silly idea that there is a "true" interpretation of christianity, or any other purely subjective phenomenon. I wouldn't have bothered but for the fact he dissed Charlemagne. Can't let him get away with that!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

45. Comment #99206 by Robert Maynard on December 15, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I agree with Bizarro that this is a silly thing to use as any kind of argument for or against either ideology, considering both parties were inebriated at the time, had the argument hours beforehand, and it was allegedly accidental. Oh, and the fact that there are very few articles that strictly identify the ideology of each party.
Of course, it is very easy to jump to a comforting conclusion based on information in some rag of a source you wouldn't trust on any other topic, but that's a slippery slope.

Bizarro Dawkins said:

"Turning it around, why is Hitler's interpretation of evolution wrong while yours isn't?"

Besides your automatic loss by Internet law.. :P
We can claim that Hitler's interpretation of evolution is wrong because there is no compelling evidence that
a) there are significant genetic differences between human 'racial' groups,
b) we can establish a scientific criteria for evaluating and judging the selective fitness of these groups, either in nature or an industrialised environment, and
c) that if we could, people with white skin, blue eyes and blonde hair would somehow rank pretty high, if not the highest, and also that people of Jewish descent would rank low, or at least below so-called "Aryans".

In any case, there was no need to call York's Christianity phony (if indeed he was the creationist), because the court decided it was not murder, but manslaughter - an accident, and to be plain, they came to know more about this case than anyone on this article thread. I have no interest in conspiratorial nonsense about 'taking it easy on the Christians'. The same kind of comparisons came up in the Pharyngula thread on this topic, and all it really highlighted is that people don't know that Australia is not as slammer-happy as America.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

46. Comment #99210 by Bonzai on December 15, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Guy shot his friend in an argument about James Brown's height.

http://www.courttv.com/people/2007/0111/james_brown_ap.html

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #99234 by mmurray on December 16, 2007 at 2:38 am

I have no interest in conspiratorial nonsense about 'taking it easy on the Christians'. The same kind of comparisons came up in the Pharyngula thread on this topic, and all it really highlighted is that people don't know that Australia is not as slammer-happy as America.

Agreed. Meyer's post on this is ridiculous. Oh well one less blog on my bookmarks list is probably a good thing.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

48. Comment #99243 by scottishgeologist on December 16, 2007 at 3:49 am

Anyone remember that incident where a guy was shot dead in an argukment over bible quoting:

http://www.thisistrue.com/graven_image_5043.html

FFS....

SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

49. Comment #99461 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 16, 2007 at 5:47 pm

"Well, I do like having my views challenged in a respectful and mutually educational environment, but the only thing I am learning here, it seems, is quite how stubborn and ridiculous theists such as yourself generally are, and how futile and pathetic your oft-repeated "arguments" actually are."

Perhaps it is not my inability to construct a valid argument but rather your unwillingness to listen? I don't mean that as an insult in any way, but I have never so quickly and condescendingly disregarded an atheist's arguments. I believe I can claim open-mindedness with a clear conscience, but as long as you continue to dismiss me as a "troll" then I doubt that the same could be said of you.

"And why should what is written in the bible be the basis for deciding who counts as a christian and who does not??"

Ok, look at the name "Christian". It literally means a disciple of Christ. It means one who follows the commands and teachings of Christ and believes in His message of salvation. Therefore, if you do not believe the teachings of Christ or you reject His message, then you cannot by definition be a Christian. Merely claiming to be a follower of any given philosophy does not mean that you really are. I can claim to be an atheist to my heart's content, but as long as I reject the notion that God does not exist, then even though I may claim to be an atheist, I clearly am not.

"As for Hitler's take on natural selection, that is immaterial as far as natural selection is concerned."

My apologies, I should have specified. I meant natural selection in the context of Darwinism. I obviously accept natural selection in the capacity that it has actually been observed.

"Whatever the case, there is an important distinction to be drawn between the objective scientific fact of evolution by natural selection and the contents of subjective political programmes which have used it in their rhetoric."

I seriously question the objectivity of evolution (obviously). Regardless, I believe this distinction is quite irrelevant. The mere fact of the matter is that people will use whatever they can to justify morally reprehensible actions, whether it be a disputed scientific paradigm or a religion.

I believe that this distinction loses even more significance in the context of this discussion. Originally, you used the alleged result of Christian ideology (the murder) in an attempt to detract from the credibility of Christianity. Therefore, if you are going to use atrocities committed in the name of x against x in order to discredit x, then any perceptual distinctions between x's become irrelevant.

"I am fine with this - political ideology is just as subective as religious ideology."

I disagree. Religious ideals are built on the basis of what claim to be objective and timeless texts. Political constructs on the other hand are based on trial-and-error methods that must adapt to sociological variances. While there may some relatively insignificant interpretational discrepancies among certain religions, they pale in comparison to the huge spectrum of ideas seen in politics.

I think this is the last post I will write on this article. I need to get to some of the newer ones. I will certainly read your next comment though if you happen to write one. God bless.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

50. Comment #99466 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 16, 2007 at 5:51 pm

""Turning it around, why is Hitler's interpretation of evolution wrong while yours isn't?"

Besides your automatic loss by Internet law.. :P"

Hehe, yeah I wasn't meaning this in any way as an argument against evolution. I've never used that shoddy argument in that capacity and I never will. I only asked it to show Cartomancer that if he desires to question Christianity's credibility on the basis of how it has been used to justify evil, then he must also submit his own philosophy to the same level of scrutiny in order to be consistent. It was no more than that.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins