The lies of Lynchburg: How U.S. evolutionists taught the Nazis.

Answers In Genesis ^ | September 1997 | Carl Wieland

[Fichori]

First published:
Creation 19(4):22–23
September 1997

by Carl Wieland

The chilling revelations of a recent television documentary¹ expose the disturbing consequences of evolutionary ways of thinking. Beginning in the 1920s, many thousands of people in the United States were sterilised against their will and without their consent, to prevent ‘undesirable breeding’. Over 8,000 of these procedures took place at a major centre to which such ‘undesirables’ were sent, in Lynchburg, Virginia.

[Fichori]

“There is no conflict in my mind between evolution and creation. I accept in both.” [excerpt]

Darwinian evolution asserts that all life evolved from a single life from, through purely natural processes, including natural selection, and that, from the very beginning, there was death and suffering.

Supernatural creation asserts that God created all life and all kinds of animals, and that from the beginning, everything was perfect in a complete absence of death.

Only through the sin of Adam did death and suffering enter the world, bringing with it the need for redemption.


If everything evolved and there has been death from the beginning and Adam's sin did not cause death to enter the world, then Christ's death on the cross becomes moot.

Links, if your interested:

Theistic evolution: what difference does it make?
Like fire and ice, the Bible and evolution don’t mix

God and evolution: do they mix?
Belief in God and evolution seems an easy option to some. But is the cost too heavy to bear?

10 dangers of theistic evolution

[tacticalogic]

And the dance goes on.

[CottShop]

Could you repeat the question? I was dreaming about running for president one day when it was asked

[CottShop]

I don’t htink that those who beleive in Macroevoltuion are itnerested in those links- It seems incredible, but apparently the Catholic Church has simply brushed aside the FACT that Macroevoltuion is impossible, that hte fossil record doesn’t support macroevolution, and that the biolgical evidence shows discontinuity, not common descent, and decided to believe the secular lie that God just let nature take it’s own course, violate it’s own rules, and create ever increasing complexities of a self-organizing nature. Apparently, in the Church’s mind, there once was a time when Nature was Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, and had creative powers that were- well- miraculous in nature- Supernatural infact. The Church seems to be replacing their belief in a Supernatural God with a belief in a Supernatural Nature- They seem willing to endow Nature with Every Supernatural character of God in order for Species to have violated Nature itself, and biology, to arrive at it’s current irreducibly complex condition

I’ll stick with a Supernatural God who superceeded nature to create wonderfully and complex species fulyl formed and fully functional- A God who wasn’t bound by the laws that would HAVE to bind Nature, and in which Nature MUST have been supernaturally able to violate in order for species to arrive at hteir current condition.

[Ditto]

Darwinian evolution asserts that all life evolved from a single life from...

Could be, or it could have evolved from multiple sources. However God wanted to do it is fine with me. I can't even begin to comprehend it and nether can any other human.

Supernatural creation asserts that God created all life and all kinds of animals, and that from the beginning, everything was perfect in a complete absence of death.

Only through the sin of Adam did death and suffering enter the world, bringing with it the need for redemption.

If everything evolved and there has been death from the beginning and Adam's sin did not cause death to enter the world, then Christ's death on the cross becomes moot.

So the Lions and Tigers in Adam and Eve's days were vegetarians? Did they kill for food? Did their prey suffer when the fangs sank into their flanks? Were Adam and Eve vegetarians?

The way I look at creation, and I think the way the Catholic Church looks at it is this.

Humans, are the only creatures we know of who have the ability to even comprehend God. We comprehend God because we understand that something can not, through natural processes, come from nothing. Ergo, the power that brought something out of nothing is Supernatural.

Therefore, that power we can not even begin to comprehend created all of this stuff we are built from that we call the universe. If that power has the ability to create all of that, He also has the power to allow life, and eventually humans, to evolve from some sort of pond scum via the very natural processes that He created. Science is only about our meger attempts to understand what He did.

I am not offended by that. The more we understand via science the more amazed I am at His power.

To paraphrase the Church's philosophy, religion is not about telling us how the heavens were made, but about teaching us how to make it to heaven.

IMHO, Darwin simply described what he saw, which is only a small part of God's handywork.

There is no conflict in my mind, and I believe we are designed, by our Creator, in the manner He chose to accomplish it. We are not an accident.

[editor-surveyor]

"However God wanted to do it is fine with me"

Doesn't sound like it to read your post. He told us that he did the entire creation in six days, but you'd prefer to believe a pack of liars that fabricate nonsense, and claim evidence that doesn't exist, and that's mathematically impossible to exist, rather than taking our all-powerful Father at his word. Doesn't sound like you believe at all.

[Fichori]

“So the Lions and Tigers in Adam and Eve's days were vegetarians?” [excerpt]

Genesis 1:30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

“Did they kill for food?” [excerpt]

Not each other.
(But the herbs died upon being eaten)

“Did their prey suffer when the fangs sank into their flanks?” [excerpt]

Do plants have feelings?

“Were Adam and Eve vegetarians?” [excerpt]

Genesis 1:29: ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

“He also has the power to allow life, and eventually humans, to evolve from some sort of pond scum via the very natural processes that He created.” [excerpt]

Just because he has the power to do something, does not mean he does it.

Like I said on another thread, the problem comes in when people start saying that he did it in a way that contradicts how he said he did it.

And as Ethan Clive Osgoode pointed out, 'Aside from that, there is the problem of saying that He did it in a way that precludes any end, goal, purpose or intention on His part.'

“Science is only about our meger attempts to understand what He did.” [excerpt]

And in the case of many, science is a way to attempt to explain where everything came from without there being a God.

“IMHO, Darwin simply described what he saw, which is only a small part of God's handywork.” [excerpt]

Unfortunately, he described way more than he ever saw.

“There is no conflict in my mind, and I believe we are designed, by our Creator, in the manner He chose to accomplish it. We are not an accident.” [excerpt]

Darwinian Evolution denies design and is accident driven.

Fortunantly, we are told how He chose to make us:

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7

No from goo to you by way of the zoo, and certianly no middle-man monkey involved.

[tacticalogic]

I was dreaming about running for president

How's that working out for you?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

B.S.. Kids in Catholic school learn evolution and that God created everything. They do not learn “intelligent design” as put forth and popularized by the Discovery Institute.

You weren't listening the first time. Post 167:

[ECO] Catholics have their own developed theory of intelligent design which predates the ID movement by some 800 years. That's what you would learn in a proper Catholic school.

Evolution is completely compatible with Catholic natural theology.

Cardinal Schonborn, 2005:

Ever since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance — or at least acquiescence — of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."

Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists — that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Darwin simply described what he saw

No, he also excluded final ends (finality). That is, the theory of evolution excludes teleology: purpose, planning, intention, active causation, and design on the part of God. Now if you don't believe this you can pick up almost any mainstream evolution book in the last 150 years and see for yourself that "evolution" is unguided, unplanned, unintentional, without goal or purpose, and undesigned. You may object and say that there is no rational reason to exclude these, that there can be no scientific justification for these ideological constraints. Nevertheless, that is mainstream "evolution".

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

“intelligent design”

You said that gambling and chance events are teleological. As such they point to the designing mind of God, according to you. Imagine that, gambling and chance points to a designer. You have been given a few chances to affirm that intelligible order in nature points to the designing mind of God. But so far you have not been able to say that.

The usual example of the flagellum should suffice as an example of intelligible order. Does this point to the designing mind of God? Or is it (as I suspect your perverse reasoning to conclude) that, while gambling points to intentional design on the part of God, something like the flagellum does not?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

There’s no biolgical proof that abstaining from food causes death- Cells aparently survive just fine without energy input because ‘there’s no proofs in science’

Indeed, one can multiply these amusing scenarios. How is it that I can so easily prove there is no carrot in my fridge by simply looking, yet the great deity of "Science", with all its instruments and clever techniques is, according to its evolutionary defenders, powerless to prove anything at all? Talk about the dumb idol of scientism.

[allmendream]

I did not say chance events point to the designing mind of God. I pointed out that what we perceive to be “random” is, according to the Bible, all under the control of God.

You attempted to set up a dichotomy. Either things developed according to God's plan, or things developed from random evolution. There is no “random” when dealing with God and God's plans.

The flagellum developed from a type II secretory system, as was apparently God's plan, the flagellum is in no way shape or form “irreducibly complex”.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I did not say chance events point to the designing mind of God.

Ya, you did. You said they were teleological. Surely you don't believe that chance events are designed by aliens.

So, does intelligible order in nature point to design, or is it just chance events that point to design?

The flagellum developed from a type II secretory system, as was apparently God's plan

Does the flagellum manifest teleology, or is it just chance events that manifest teleology, according to you?

[allmendream]

I asked you if you considered it, a question you still have not answered. Do you think that if something is “random” that means it is not directed by God? How do you reconcile that view with Prov 16:33?

The flagellum manifests how protein structures can be coded for by DNA that is subject to mutation leading to variation, and that this variation can lead to a structure that was used to secrete toxins into other cells, into becoming a motility structure. This manifests the grandeur of God’s creation to me, because I am a Christian, so I consider the flagella and everything else to be a manifestation of the will of God.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

This manifests the grandeur of God’s creation to me, because I am a Christian, so I consider the flagella and everything else to be a manifestation of the will of God.

How about sin?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Do you think that if something is “random” that means it is not directed by God?

"Omne agens agit propter finem. Every agent acts in view of an end." (Maritain)

we ascribe to chance those things which are beside the intention of the agent. (Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 2.39)

Holy Writ bears witness to this truth... God divided the light from the darkness... so that not only the creation of things, but also their distinction is shown to be from God, and not from chance..." (Aquinas SCG 2.39)

"Whatever happens, happens in view of an end" is erroneous. "That which happens by chance is precisely what happens with no end to determine it." (Maritain)

So, to say as you do, that chance is design or to argue (as you do) that because God's designs are not random, therefore random events are God's design, is just a pile of contradictions and illogic.

[tpanther]

we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor

See it's the "since we diverged" part we're talking about. Talking about it as if it happened and never addressing it, only means you're talking about it and not addressing it.

Hardly proof.