|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2007 : 19:26:27 [Permalink]
|
And here it is, right on schedule: Keywordsauthor-bodie-hodge creation-evolution-controversy death humanism school-violence suffering worldviews
I am prepared to fight and die for my cause, . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident . . . . It's time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!1
Sadly, these words were among the last things said before a self-proclaimed Social Darwinist took action in a shooting rampage in Jokela High School about 40 miles from Helsinki, Finland. At least eight people were reported killed by the student gunman named Pekka-Eric Auvinen, who had an online alias “Sturmgeist89,” in a tragic event that has shocked the country that sits in the far northern region of Europe.2
The Rise of Evolution
Finland, like many other European nations, used to be very Christian in its culture. They still have a Nordic blue cross on the flag of their country. But over the years, evolutionism began to infiltrate in schools, universities and so on. Evolutionism denies that that the Bible is God's Word and that God is the final authority. Instead it raises up man to be the supreme authority. Evolutionists have made clear the meaning of evolution:
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.3
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear . . . . There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.4 |
And so forth. It was all pretty predictable, really.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2007 : 19:44:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
After 10 years in the church as a born-again Christian, I left because I grew tired of watching Christians preaching but not living what they preached. |
There is not a Christian out there that lives everthing they beleive. If they could we would not need Jesus. When you say you were a born again christian did you live out everything you believed? |
That is a straw-man. I never said I expected them live everything they believed (or preached).
They just didn't even make an honest effort to try, as far as I could see. They talked a lot about it, but talk is cheap. Not everyone was like that, there were a few people who really did well. But those were exceptions.
| When you say you were a born again christian did you live out everything you believed? |
Not every thing, that would have been impossible. But I'd like to think I did fairly good, in retrospect I'd say I did a lot better than most of my peers. The difference is, I wittnessed by example rather than by words. Just because I realised how damaging hypocrisy is to religion, I never promised anything I wasn't sure I could keep. Never asked of others something I couldn't own up to myself first.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2007 : 23:48:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
At Uncommon Descent, BarryA makes the predictable argument, and actually gets spanked for it by some nice God-fearing Christians.
|
Some are fair-minded, but some aren't. But the point that one brings up about how could the Columbine and Finland killers really be motivated by "Darwinism" if they killed themselves, seems to close the issue, logically. I hadn't even twigged to that, myself.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 10:46:09 [Permalink]
|
| Well, I've tried commenting, though I didn't have much time, since I have to go to bed soon. Hope what I said was good enough, or even made sense. So much shit to respond to... |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 15:48:51 [Permalink]
|
Well, my first time I got through, the second time I didn't; someone there told me earlier that the system they use sometimes even blocks the mods comments. Whatever. Just in case, here's what I tried to say:
One thing that hasn't been stressed enough is this: the consequences or the unpleasant results of an idea in science have itself NO bearing on whether that idea is true or not! These entire posts by UD are nothing but emotional manipulation: to make people not want to believe that evolution's true. Never mind that a lot of historical distortion has to go on to make that supposed link here in the first place. One w2ould think that Bourne who's supposed to be so good at logical thinking would call them on that, but nope.
Borne at #45:
from Origin
"The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"
- subtitle of Origin
In the 1870 Anthropological Review, Max Muller classified the human race into 7 categories on an ascending scale - with the Aborigines on the lowest rung and the "Aryan" type supreme.
What theory do you think he based this upon?
Darwin's "Descent of Man" is just full of the expressions "inferior" vs "superior" - in speaking of the different races of humans - or rather humans and sub-humans. Since blacks and Aborigines were, in his mind, not completely human.
Bull.
For you, and mynym at #46
look for Descent of man on that page
Throughout the Descent, when Darwin refers to "civilised races" he almost always is referring to cultures in Europe.
I think Darwin was simply confused at that time about the difference between biological races and cultural races in humans. This is not surprising at this time - almost nobody made the distinction but Alfred Russel Wallace.
. . . At this time it was common for Europeans (based on an older notion of a "chain of being from lowest to highest") to think that Africans ("negroes") were all of one subspecific form, and were less developed than "Caucasians" or "Asians", based on a typology in around 1800 by the German Johann Friedrich Blumenach. In short, Darwin is falling prey to the same error almost everyone else was . . . So far as I can tell, he was not hoping for the extermination of these "races", though. ... Throughout his life, Darwin argued against slavery and for the freedom and dignity of native populations under European slavery.
In other words, Darwin's views on racism were based on the standard current European culture of the time, not on his developing views of evolution.
Maybe you should, for some context, to see what Darwin really thought, you could do some reading about Darwin and what he meant by "favoured races".
Especially the last few paragraphs in the Troy Britain link.
And here.
Second, populations vary among themselves; this variation is what natural selection must work with. Darwin himself noted that there is no trait on which one could rest a claim of "racial superiority" which was possessed by all members of one race and no members of another. Later evolutionists, however much they may have shared their society's assumption (also shared, often in stronger form, by their creationist contemporaries) that, on average, whites were smarter than members of other races, invariably noted that of course there were (as the theory demanded) many individual exceptions. Note that the theory itself does not require that races exist (and modern evolutionists mostly doubt that true races exist among humans) or that any particular differences exist in average group abilities.
If you want an example of someone who really thought that different people's genetic dispositions made some inferior to others, check out Henry Morris! (see Reply by Richard Trott section)
Back to Peter at #57
Don't forget the 50 million and counting babies killed in America after it became a secular state. At 1.5 million babies killed a year, it won't be long before this will be the worst mass murder in history. Ultrasound has removed any doubt that the unborn are persons. These babies would have lived if society followed the morality of the church instead of the amoral secular politicians, judges, and media elite. The logic is irrefutable and obvious - no religion, no morality.
If you consider being a firefighter, or a soldier in your nations army, or a mostly secular country with a high standard of leaving and a low violence rate to have no morality then I'd like to hear your case for that. Meanwhile, I'm sure though that the members of the Muslim faith like Harun Yahua would agree with you, never mind that that is the religion responsible for the 911 attacks. Oh wait, you meant only the Christian faith, didn't you? Have you somehow been able to figure out who the IDers mysterious "Designer" is?
Non-religious people have our own reasons for acting along with others, survival of ourselves, setting an example for our kids, keeping society together so it doesn't fall apart thus letting us have a decent quality of life within it, etc. You, and Borne on the other hand, need someone (god) to tell you what to do and what not to do when it comes to morality in order to have a "real" foundation for ethics?
Sounds like the morality of a child who doesn't yet know right from wrong yet, and has to be taught such by the parents. Not something I'd be bragging about like you are. Bragging about your religion happens to be a sign of egotism, what you accuse "Darwinists" later on of being. BTW, Borne...athiesm is just a lack of a belief in god. It isn't supposed to be a system of ethics. It isn't like a religion, where you have "god-ordained" rules, heirarchy, and a way to get to the afterlife.
It's up to us to figure out on our own how to get along with each other and help our civilization thrive. That's what Provine meant when he said that there is no "ultimate" sytem of ethics. If it meant no moral rules whatsoever, instead of man figuring them out, then Provine would himself have a longer rap sheet then the average pedophile priest.
As I've said before, athiests figure that this life is all there is, and once it's gone, that's it! Coulter having said that the States should just bomb the muslim states and convert them to chrisitianity, she's not exactly helping the situation! Even with a god to tell her what to do.
As to why I brought Coulter up? To show that the whinging you did earlier about PZ or Pandas Thumb when they rag on believers is not as bad as what your representatives do to us. I thought it was obvious why I brought her up.
Darwinists do not want to accept the facts, but that is nothing new. Just because they want an egotistical life without any obligation to anyone other than themselves doesn't mean we should suppress the truth.
Any evidence that "Darwinists" just want to have egotistical lives without any obligation to anyone other than themselves? I'm pretty sure that statement would come as a shock to HIV researcher SA Smith who said that she'd be the happiest unemployed person on the planet (referring to her work getting "done" and a cure for AIDS found).
Or does working on a cure for a disease somehow qualify as "leading an egotistical life without any obligation to anyone other than herself"?
How is publicly discussing the myriad mistakes your ID heroes write in their books qualify as "suppressing the truth"?
And what hypocrites they are. How many times have we heard ID isn't science by the people that fire scientists if they publish ID papers?. Maybe it's the steady stream of mistakes that the ID people make? If that isn't enough, then maybe you could check out the transcript of the Dover Trial where some of those mistakes were brought to light. The Behe sections may be helpful. Or, you could just read the text of the judge's decision.
It seems the Sternberg case and others were blown out of proportion by you people.
About Columbine: According the the sheriff's report, no one was killed for their religion:
Harris walked over to table 19 where he bent down and saw two frightened girls. He slapped the table top twice, said, "Peek-a-boo," and fired, killing Cassie Bernall. After shooting Cassie, Harris made a comment about hitting himself in the face. Investigators believe Harris broke his nose as a result of the "kick" from the shotgun when he bent to fire under the table.
While Klebold was at table 2, Harris stopped near table 3 under which two girls were hiding. He looked under the table and, upon seeing them, simply said, "Pathetic," and walked away.
Valeen, who was critically hurt, began to cry, "Oh God, help me." Klebold, who had shot her, came back and taunted her about her belief in God. He then walked away.
shaner74 at #50
How does something entirely formed by nature decide to disobey it?How does something entirely formed by "god" decide to disobey it? Why is it when a monkey, something that doesn#8217;t have a soul, is able to choose to do one thing or the other when it's given a choice? How is it that a coin flipped may land on either one side or the other? One does not need an immaterial "soul" to choose to do something or not.
StephenB at #55
A lot of bluster here, where you "refute" a part of the guy's work that didn't have a thing to do with the actual reason for my bringing him up In the first place: The real reasons for the holocaust and anti-semitism. One would have thought that if Avalos' work was so easily refuted, you'd have chosen to refute that part of his essay, you know, that deals with the reason I brought him up in the first place? Instead you deal with one paragraph that deals with some opinions about what the religion means. The guy he quoted is speaking about that point from the Jewish perspective; you#8217;re coming at it from a Christian perspective and just asserting that that perspective is right. I couldn't care less, that has virtually nothing to do with the majority of the essay which deals with anti-semitism.
The very next paragraph he starts dissecting Weikart again, yet you leave that alone. Why?
For more Weikart fun. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 11/13/2007 09:50:06 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 13:34:42 [Permalink]
|
Some of my comments are showing up, it seems that even if I have only one or no links, there's very little chance of my comment showing up...if I have more than one link, forget about it. Yet others post with 2 links in their comments...
So, once again, I'll post here
--------
Ah well, now to try to post my next reply to Borne at post #148
Borne at #148
You say, "bull".
You are way off in your response.
1. Did you ever actually read Descent of Man yourself? Rather than referring us to talkorigins.org or PT's ubiquitous tripe? Have you ever actually read anything other than PT and cie.? The words inferior and superior litter the pages of Descent.
And you've never read much of Darwin's works, I take it, since you refuse to take into context his actual views. You just arrogantly pick the views that suits your own prejudices and ignore any facts that goes against them.
I'm now assuming that you don't want to take the time to read all Darwin's books and examine his views in any kind of context.
That's why I have the links to the talkorigin and other sites. They link to actual excerpts from his books and they explain the context. You don't seem interested in even reading or discussing those small excerpts, just dismissing them.
Borne again:
You cannot escape the racist implications of Darwin's theory.
You could not possibly miss his entirely suspicious views on women and blacks.
Nope, all I did was put his views in context: you do realize that Darwin's "racism" was already commonly held in Europe at the time, right?
Something you continually miss: Even if Darwin was the most racist scum by Europe's standards, which he wasn't, what does that have to do with the truthfulness or falsehood of his theory?? You (and the blog posters here) are engaging in a classic fallacy. Making people not emotionally want to believe in a theory as an excuse to reject it, despite any evidence.
In Darwin's writings, some of which I tried to show you from the SFN link in my previous post, I showed how his views on race were more liberal than those of the people around him. If anything, his travels and research which lead to his theory also led him to realize that humans can't really be distinguished from each other by so-called "race".
He was only just starting to come to that conclusion, which modern science has since borne out.
Something else you don't mention: even if "Darwinism" was "racist", modern genetics has shown that humans are all one race. Evolution is also upheld by modern science.
Borne again:
Does this prove the point of this thread? No. Nor was it the intention. My intention is to point out your erroneous readings of what others say. You read your own wayward thoughts into it all.
No, I just looked at more evidence to get the context that you refuse to look at. Try doing some more reading at the SFN link to see the sources and readings I listed there.
Borne again:
I suggest you check out Dr. Weirkart's book "From Darwin to Hitler" with his responses to Darwinist critics here
I've done that. You should go to the section of that site labelled "General Response to Critics".
Here's something that I'm pretty sure you missed. Even Weikart tries to play down (a wee bit) the Darwinist/holocaust implications, unlike you people. Even though he's a Discovery Institue member, and not exactly a member of an unbiased group without an agenda against "darwinism". Something else that you haven't mentioned about him.
Concerning the first charge (that I claim that every form of Darwinism led to Nazism), I stated quite clearly in the introduction: "Obviously, Darwin was no Hitler. The contrast between the personal lives and dispositions of these two men could hardly be greater. Darwin eschewed politics, retreating to his country home in Down for solitude to conduct biological research and to write. Hitler as a demagogue lived and breathed politics, stirring the passions of crowds through frenzied speeches. Politically Darwin was a typical English liberal, supporting laissez-faire economics and opposing slavery. Like most of his contemporaries, Darwin considered non-European races inferior to Europeans, but he never embraced Aryan racism or rabid anti-Semitism, central features of Hitler's political philosophy." (p. 3) I specifically denied that Darwinist thinkers are proto-Nazi. I also explained in my introduction: "The opposing view "that Hitler hijacked Darwinism" has significant supporting arguments, for many scholars have pointed out that Darwinism did not lead to any one particular political philosophy or practice. Social Democrats with impeccable Marxist credentials were enthusiastic about Darwinism and even considered it a corroboration of their own worldview. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, 'Although developed in a coarse English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view.' Furthermore, many pacifists, feminists, birth control advocates, and homosexual rights activists, some of whom were persecuted and even killed by the Nazis, were enthusiastic Darwinists and used Darwinian arguments to support their political and social agendas. Eugenics discourse was commonplace all across the political spectrum, causing the historian Atina Grossmann to convincingly argue that the path from eugenics and sex reform to Nazism was 'a convoluted and highly contested route.' Nazism was not predetermined in Darwinism or eugenics, not even in racist forms of eugenics." It's hard for me to understand how anyone could read the introduction to my book and make the ridiculous claim that I argue that all Darwinists promoted euthanasia or genocide. These scholars apparently are unaware that I wrote a previous book, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein, in which I explained the reception of Darwinism by German socialists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. No, all Darwinism didn't lead to Nazism, and I of all people know this quite well. If my critics skipped the introduction of my book, they could also have learned my views in the conclusion, where I stated: "It would be foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust, as though Darwinism leads logically to the Holocaust. No, Darwinism by itself did not produce Hitler's worldview, and many Darwinists drew quite different conclusions from Darwinism for ethics and social thought than did Hitler." (p. 232) So where did my critics get the idea that I argued that "all Darwinian thought led inevitably to Auschwitz"?
Here, go back to the SFN link I had posted before, and go to the link at the end of the post. Weikart is discussed in the links in that thread in detail, by many people.
I notice that other than dismissals without discussion, (a characteristic trait of both YECs and IDists like you) you've not dealt with a single point that Avalos mentions in his essay that details the course of anti-semitism and his review of Weikart's book.
Borne again:
There are at least 10 other books on the history of the subject that support his work.
How's about I give you the actual titles of some books that show the real reasons for the Holocaust:
On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther, a thiest
The Jew and the Cross by Dagobert Runes.
Borne again:
All the bull spouted by TO or PT etc. will never change the historical reality.
Gee. I thought that just dismissing people with names in order to refute what they say was a fallacy. Well, using that logic, I can refute anything said on this blog then, can't I?
Borne again:
Ask the people who were there and wrote books on it. Ask Arthur Kieth.
Speaking of "historical reality" and "people who were there", Dagobert Rune's mother was killed in the holocaust. Thanks for bringing that up, you've let me help my case.
I was wondering when he'd be brought up...Johnathan Sarfati, a YEC from AIG (later CMI) likes to quote him too.
Check out the "Quote Mine Project" on the talkorigins site. Specifically Quote #4.13
Borne again:
Your own comments regarding his historically accurate rendering are pathetic indeed. Pure ignorance and more denial. You may as well deny there ever was a holocaust.
The you further tie yourself up in mere denial (the typical Darwinist response to truth) with your remarks:
"It seems the Sternberg case and others were blown out of proportion by you people."
Indeed? It must never have happened then eh!
Did I say that it never happened? Again, context! I did not say that it never happened, I said it was "blown out of proportion". You know, for someone who likes to criticize the logical skills of other people, you've got a bad habit of throwing context to the wind.
Borne again:
Ask him yourself! The list Darwinist persecution, black-balling, discriminations and totalitarian attitudes is large indeed. Overwhelming evidence.
If that's the case, then let's see this list, if this evidence is so "overwhelming" then it should be easy for you. It seems that it can't be worse than my trying to post on the UD site. It seems I have to post most of my comments on SFN instead!
Yet again, I've noticed that you've ignored the circumstances that the Pandas Thumb people describle. What is this aversion you have to the detail?
Borne again:
"About Columbine: According the the sheriff's report, no one was killed for their religion"
Indeed? I suggest you go to the parents of the victims and tell them your pathetic little version and let them tell you theirs.
You obviously did not bother to read the report, nor the parts I quoted, did you?
My "pathetic little version"? It was the actual report I linked to in the SFN link I linked to from here. Deal with it.
I suspect that the parents, unlike you, have already read that report.
Valeen was shot before she ever talked about god. When she mentioned god, she was not shot again.
All those people were shot without regards to religion. If those killings were religiously motivated, then you have to explain why, according to the actual report, why all those people who never said anything about religion were shot.
Borne again:
All you have done is continue to prove why we say that Darwinists, especially atheist Darwinists, live in denial of evidence and reality.
Given how you've completely ignored what the sheriff's report said, assuming that you've even bothered to read it in the link I gave, all you've done is show your own hypocrosy. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 11/13/2007 13:57:57 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 19:44:26 [Permalink]
|
There we go! Now I'm able to mix it up a little. Born at least in a later reply had quoted a little bit from what I had originally posted here, which I had then responded to above.
I was able to post a reply to StephenB without any trouble...it was the links that were doing it.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 11/13/2007 19:58:44 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
School shooting done by "naturalist"
