Sorry for the less-than-pithy title, but I spelled it out to emphasize the multiple inconsistencies of the Leftist/Darwinian crowd that poses as part of the anti-bullying movement.
First, I want to be clear that I oppose all bullying.* For example, I know many gay/lesbian people, and I would defend them if they were bullied just as I would defend other sinners who were getting bullied. I’m just predisposed to protect the weak and defenseless, such as the unborn.
OK, back to whaling on the Leftist Darwinists: For starters, they don’t mind bullying as long as they are the bullies. See the Expelled! movie, for example. They are so “confident” in their views that they delight in using their power to silence opposing views, end careers, etc. Academic bullying is still bullying. The root of bullying is cowardice and fear, and they display it regularly.
And if they really believed what they claim they’d concede that there is no grounding to criticize bullying. Oh, we all know it is wrong, but in a molecules-to-man worldview you can write volumes trying to rationalize objective morality (and they do try!) but you always end up losing. It turns out to be “truth is relative” morality that they have no logical grounds to expect others to follow unless forced to.
And of course, if there is no God and we are purely the result of the Darwinian mechanism, then it is to “blame” for bullying. How could you hold the bullies accountable? They were born that way.
Finally, wouldn’t bullying be a positive in the Darwinian worldview? You know, survival of the fittest, the strong preying on the weak and all that. Why do they get squeamish and give up a core principle of their cherished worldview?
—–
* My official, one-size-fits-all anti-bullying policy, offered here for the public domain and available for use by all school districts, free of charge:
If you physically or verbally harass other students on or off school grounds, including the Internet, you will have swift and serious consequences. It doesn’t matter if you are bullying because they are gay/straight/fat/thin/smart/dumb/pretty/ugly/etc., or if it is just because you are a mean jerk.
Training over. You don’t need LGBTQ sex clubs in schools to prevent bullying. That is just a Trojan Horse.
Eternity Matters 
I agree. I was bullied in school. I was very short. So what? It’s a part of life. Everyone has their tormenters. I learned how to stop bullying quickly. I fought back. These bullied kids need to suck it up and just fightback. That is the only thing that will stop bullying.
But, there is a bigger point: All these whiners are symptomatic of what I call the “wussification of America”. It’s becoming ridiculous how far this whining has come and will go. Have you seen this??
LikeLike
Mark, I totally agree with you. The problem is that the kid who finally fights back usually ends up in more trouble than the bully.
LikeLike
Worth it. The end result is less trouble down the line. There is always a price to pay to get what you want. To go through more politically correct avenues would cost freedoms and likely more incidents of victimization. A good beat down would likely end any further attempts at such, regardless of whatever consequences the former victim my have to suffer.
LikeLike
Man, I was bullied for the whole 12 years I spent in public school; for being skinny, for wearing glasses, for being poor, for having a horrible case of acne, etc. Guess what – I lived through it without whining to teachers or parents. Yet today’s babies whine and cry rather than stiff-upper-lipping. Bullying is wrong, for any reason. But in our wonderful country the only bullying that will get you in trouble is if you bully someone who is homophile.
BUT, notice who the real bullies are; the homosexualists. It is they who bully people who don’t agree with them. It is they who get people fire, shut down their business, etc for just being against homosexual behavior. As with other liberal ideologies, the rules they make don’t apply to them.
LikeLike
Exactly. It is just like their “it is OK to be intolerant to the (allegedly) intolerant” and “it is OK to hate the (alleged) haters” hypocrisies. We’ve always opposed bullying of any kind, but now they are spreading their “it is OK to bully the (alleged) bullies” philosophy.
LikeLike
The scope of what is considered intolerent activity requring additional laws spelling out what is “acceptable” behavior increases as we move further and further away from natural law. Excellent description of natural law can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TSiJ2Gp058
LikeLike
Your title is brilliant!
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
I don’t really understand what this has to do with Darwinism. Is it your view that people who accept evolution as valid want the fittest to survive in all cases, and would encourage bullying as a way to lessen the chances of the bullied child being able to survive to the age of reproduction?
If you were joking, and it went over my head, please forgive me.
LikeLike
Not at all. Darwinian evolution, if true, wouldn’t care what people wanted the fittest to do. I was pointing out how they seem surprised, whereas if they really believed their worldview they wouldn’t be (see the title). I never said they would encourage bullying, just that they should expect it and have no universal moral grounding to criticize it.
And remember, it isn’t about getting the genes of your species into the next generation, but your genes. At least that’s the meme.
LikeLike
Actually it is not about getting your specific genes into the next generation, but about favoring genes that are most closely related to yours. In many cases that means getting the genes of your species into the next generation, as a healthy group of animals of the same species as you forms a community that helps to protect the interests of all.
That said, where did you see that anyone was surprised about bullying, and where you get the idea that people who believe in science can’t criticize things?
LikeLike
Actually, it is about Darwinists re-defining it whenever the evidence opposes their last just-so story.
So you expect people to bully? And if you expect them to, isn’t that what Darwinism would tell you is part of the program?
Or do you think they shouldn’t bully? And if not, why has Darwinian evolution erred in making them want to bully?
You are welcome to criticize all you like, just I’m welcome to point out how inconsistent the Darwinian worldview is.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if you want me to answer or go away, but I’ll try to answer, and you can tell me to go away if you like.
Yes, I expect people to bully. We do lots of things that upset other people. The world is a difficult place. Yes, Darwinian evolution tell me to expect that. We are all involved in a struggle to survive. For some, that means hurting people, and for some it means running away from people (fight or flight is a common theme of biology).
Should people bully? No, of course not. If we wish to live in a society that is safe, we must attempt to make safety a key element of society. I don’t need to say that Darwinian evolution has erred. It predicts that bullying will happen, and it seems to be right. Bullying happens in all species (perhaps not most plants, and certain dogs seem to be incapable of being mean). Evolution is brutal. It’s based on the fact that weak organisms die before strong ones. We don’t need to like it. Sometimes the truth is not very nice.
When did Darwinian evolution become a “worldview”? What does that even mean?
LikeLike
Christopher,
You are polite so you are welcome to visit and comment.
The post and my follow-up comments were designed to point out the inconsistencies in the Darwianian worldview. And by “Darwinian worldview” I simply mean that we all have lenses through which we view the world, so someone who thinks we really evolved from single-celled organisms (ignore how the universe came into existence and how life came from non-life, which atheists don’t have a clue about either) is necessarily going to view the world in a particular way.
If you really think we evolved that way then you have no grounding to say that bullying — or anything else — is universally immoral. Why shouldn’t people bully? Just because you think they shouldn’t? But the bullies don’t agree, so who are you to tell them otherwise?
I know bullying is wrong. You know it is wrong. But my worldview can explain why, and yours cannot. It can only come up with tortured rationalizations that have to sneak the moral concept of goodness in the back door. I’m simply pointing out the inconsistency in your view. I hope that plants a seed to make you re-examine whether your worldview reflects the way things really are.
LikeLike
I would certainly not explain my worldview as Darwinian. That would tie me to a specific theory, and make me blind to evidence against it. That goes against everything I believe.
As far as the origin of the universe goes, why do I have to explain that? I certainly cannot explain it, as it is currently a great mystery—one I hope we will solve one day in the same way that we’ve solved other scientific mysteries. There’s no need to blame biologists for solving one part of a mystery and not another. Every little bit counts. We don’t say “Nice computer Steve Jobs, but when can we have better dishwashers?”
And finally, onto bullying. I’m glad we both believe it is wrong. I’m a little confused that you think morality can only come from a supreme being. There no evidence (that I’m aware of anyway) that having religious faith is the only way people can act morally. There are other sources of morality, not the least of which is our built in compassion for others. Although it’s intangibility makes experimentation very difficult, it’s clear that supreme beings are not the only source.
I would argue that almost all of them agree, and those who don’t agree simply have not thought about it enough. Most of us know when we’re wrong, but conflicts in our interests push us in ways that stray from morality.
If the Israelites needed to cross the desert inorder to
LikeLike
Hi Christopher,
“As far as the origin of the universe goes, why do I have to explain that?”
I didn’t say you had to, but I recommend investigating the cosmological argument for God’s existence. It is very logical and while it doesn’t immediately lead to the God of the Bible, the traits are very similar: A powerful, eternal, personal, immaterial being.
“I’m a little confused that you think morality can only come from a supreme being. There no evidence (that I’m aware of anyway) that having religious faith is the only way people can act morally.”
My claim is that they can’t act morally at times, it is that they can’t ground the morality.
“There are other sources of morality, not the least of which is our built in compassion for others.”
Who says it is built in? Just because some people have it doesn’t mean that all do, and that they always had it.
“I would argue that almost all of them agree, and those who don’t agree simply have not thought about it enough.”
You could argue that, but you don’t have any facts to support it. You are basically saying we vote on morality, and that isn’t true morality at all.
LikeLike
The cosmological argument is interesting. I find that each time I think about it I reject it outright due to the fact that the “first cause” gets an exemption to the argument in question. Then I come around to the fact that since everything has a cause, maybe that requirement outweighs the exemption. I think this is likely the conclusion arrived at by Plato, Aquinas, et al.
My current take on that argument is that it relies heavily on the universe being finite, thus making the amount of possible “causal chains” finite, but I’m no longer sure that is the case, and neither are astrophysicists. The current big bang theory, as well as most competing theories, involve the idea that time breaks down in certain circumstances, and infinite density (which is likely to have happened at some point) means an infinite amount of time. This all blows my tiny mind to smithereens and that brief explanation is about the extent of my understanding, but it’s enough for the cosmological argument to fall apart, in my humble opinion.
By the way, I’m not dismissing the possibility of a first cause, or even some sort of a being (who would certainly have earned the title supreme, or God, having caused such a ruckus). My objections lie in using this argument, and others that I find just as weak, to come to the conclusion that a God visited humans billions of years after creating our habitat to suddenly supply a set of rules upon a tiny subset of some of the least literate people on earth. I also object to the validity of the rules, many of which seem terribly immoral to me, and the equally immoral examples given in the book said to contain them.
So there we have it. That’s my stance regarding the Christian “grounding” of morality, and why, although I struggle with moral problems as much as the next person, I sleep well knowing I’ve grounded my morals at least as well as anyone else.
LikeLike
Hi — you misunderstand the cosmological argument — more here — http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/what-you-need-to-know-videos-about-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem-bvg-theorem/ . The first cause doesn’t get an exemption, it fits in with definition. Everything that came into being had a cause. The first cause was, by definition, eternal.
Evidence free just-so stories about multiverses are not a logical way to deal with your eternal destiny.
And you still haven’t grounded morality. Darwinian evolution selects for survivability, not truth or reason, so you’d have no reason to trust your reasoning faculties.
I hope you study carefully and reconsider your views. Eternity is a mighty long time.
Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
LikeLike
Programs like LGBT serve a dual purpose: an outlet for those young wandering minds to confer with sponsoring adults. The children are lead one way or another and whether or not it be your way, what will it matter to you? You know you have found something worth believing in, why do you push and shove the beliefs of others? Maybe you should get involved in a local chapter of clubs like LGBT. Why not open the door to a peaceable conversation with the people you are so harshly discriminating against? Jesus taught compassion and I see none of that in your blogging. You’re a mean Christian; I am disappointed to share my loving faith with you.
Also, I don’t think Darwin has a thing to do with LGBT groups.
Would you please draw the line which connects your title to your article?
I’m unsure that LEFT = Atheist…which is what I think you mean by “evolutionist.” But in reality, these terms are by no means interchangeable. You really should avoid being so vague if you want to attack people appropriately.
LikeLike
Dear Troll,
Here’s a free blogging tip: When you come to a Christian blog and you are posing as a Christian who is pro-gay, be sure to change your default email address so it doesn’t say “f***jesus@gmail.com.” It sort of exposes you for the fraud that you are.
I could have spotted you as a fake anyway, but that saved time.
It isn’t surprising to know that people like you, who want to poison the minds of children with pro-gay propaganda, are perfectly willing to lie and pretend to be Christians. That’s the face of the pro-gay movement for you.
LikeLike