The Virginia Tech Shootings: What might have stopped it?
by Tom Taylor
In all of the news stories and commentary about the recent shootings at Virginia Tech, very rarely were
the actions of the murderer, Cho Seung-Hui, described as “wrong,” “evil” or “wicked.” Rather, the flood of
what-made-him-do-it analyses presented Cho as essentially a helpless victim of psychological forces
beyond his control; a troubled young man who didn’t get the help he needed.
Columnist David Brooks described this way of thinking very well in a column he wrote at the time, which
appeared in our local paper under the headline: “The shifting morality line.” He decried the trend, but still
felt he had no choice but to accept the “science” of it. “Over the past few decades,” he wrote,
“neuroscientists, evolutionary psychologists, and social scientists have made huge strides in
understanding why people – even murderers – do the things they do.” Brooks mourns that “in the realm of
the new science, the individual is (only) a cork bobbing on the currents of giant forces: evolution, brain
chemistry, stress and upbringing... Many scientists now doubt there is such a thing as free will.”
Brooks accepts the supposed scientific validity of this argument, even as he mourns the logical
implications. This puts him in much the same position as Nietzsche who, after concluding “God is dead,”
spent years wrestling with the moral implications for mankind; and went insane during the last years of his
life.
Who can deny Nietzsche’s descent into insanity is a picture of our own time? If God did not in fact create
mankind; and if evolution and its resulting systems of thought are really true, then those who commit
unspeakable evil are indeed only helpless hostages of their brain chemistry. The trouble is, it logically
follows that those who do selfless, brave and heroic deeds are also helpless robots. Forget the medals
and praise for bravery. After all, the med-evac pilot who braved enemy fire to rescue his wounded
comrades only did it because his brain chemistry and mental conditioning made him do it. The father who
works hard to support his family only does it because of the evolutionary development of the male role.
“Good” actions can’t logically be praised if “bad” ones can’t be condemned. This is the black hole into
which evolutionary thinking has sunk the human race.
Brooks concludes “we’re never going back. We’re not going to put our knowledge of brain chemistry or
evolutionary psychology back in the bottle. It would be madness to think Cho Seung-Hui could have been
saved from his demons with better sermons.”
Oh really? What if Cho, earlier in his life, had indeed heard and responded to “better sermons?” What
if he had really believed he was created with a free will by a wonderful loving God, who had fixed standards
of right and wrong? What if he knew he was responsible to God for his actions? What if that knowledge
had prompted him early in life to accept the forgiveness and salvation provided through Jesus Christ?
Then he would have had the joy and security of knowing his Creator was also his Savior, Lord, and best
friend.
Of course he may still have struggled with unavoidable neuroses or clinical depression. But his life would
have been on a secure moral platform to deal with those issues. Gone would’ve been the cosmic
loneliness and the poisonous hatred. If that had been the case, it’s safe to say that thirty-two noble,
beautiful people at Virginia Tech would still be alive today; and Cho himself would not now be facing the
judgment of God.
At the crux of these two views of mankind is the question: is evolution really scientifically valid? For more
on that debate, see some of the other articles on this website. For now suffice it to say more and more
scientists are coming to the conclusion evolution is scientifically absurd; and, if so, the thought systems
flowing from it are also suspect. Perhaps it’s time we gave those scientists a fair hearing instead of closing
our minds with the usual ridicule. Because the current dominance of the evolutionary view is leading us
ever deeper into a moral morass where we will likely see more senseless atrocities like the one at Virginia
Tech.
Go to Index of Articles Return to home page