Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?
All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.
Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has “totally destroyed many parts of our society.”
Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way “to advance evolution.” Darwinism was also the “foundation” of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenin’s desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and looking at a skull.
“Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress,” Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was “always the same: Darwin.”
In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.
Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. “She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed,” he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit.”
Alfred Kinsey, whose “experiments” in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.
Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
“The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations that’s ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution,” said Owen.
I am sure that making such an argument was the furthest thing from your mind!
Assuredly!
;)
Yes, the Darwins were eugenicists, Lamarck wasn't.
Eugenics existed as a pattern of thought long before Darwin formulated his theory - many people assumed that humans could be selectively bred for desired traits and that undesirable traits should be eliminated.
Perhaps, but they didn't conspire to prevent the "undesirables" from reproducing.
Darwin's theory gave a veneer of scientific respectability to the field that was undeserved - but they glommed onto anyone with the NAME of Darwin to try to prop up this association.
The Eugenics Society was FOUNDED by a Darwin.
So still no evidence that Stalin ever recommended someone read Darwin. Yet you base SO MUCH of your argument on that little bit of fluff.
The basis of everything I've written on this thread is Darwinian eugenics, NOT evolution.
But, go ahead and look here:
The FACTS are that Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God - and that the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism.
Yet Hitler's evil legacy is pure eugenics, unless of course you can find where Lamarck suggested killing and sterilizing the disabled and exterminating entire races.
Lies about historic facts do not advance the Creationist argument.
Go back and read through the thread, my ONLY comments about Creationism is to state that there is more to Darwinism than evolutionary theory.
When Creationists make these arguments it shows just how desperate they are that they have to make up lies just to make an illogical argument of guilt by association and an appeal to consequences.
You have yet to establish that ANYONE on here lied.
Ever hear of the Spartans? They certainly conspired to prevent undesirables from reproducing.
Wow, once suspect source citing World Nutt Daily! Consider me entirely unconvinced by this one anecdotal account in the face of a Soviet POLICY of imprisoning those who taught Darwin's theory.
Eugenics is not Darwin's theory. Belief in eugenics predates Darwin. Most who accept Darwin's theory correctly reject eugenics because it is idiotic. Acceptance of Darwin's theory is not a necessity for advocating eugenics.
Moreover, even if this article didn't have to LIE to attempt to make its point - its “point” boils down to an illogical guilt by association and an appeal to consequences.
To what religion, if any, do you belong?
I would ask you, how many scientists do you, personally, know? How much of the scientific/medical literature have you read? On what basis do you make the pronouncement that the majority of scientists treat science as "dogmatic belief"? I would propose that unless you surround yourself with scientists and are very well versed in the scientific literature, you do not have *any* kind of insight into how we (scientists) think or believe.
If you have unsuccessfully tried to get an MD to agree to some "alternative" treatment, did you entertain the possibility that the MD in question has a professional obligation to not provide treatments whose efficacy has not been thoroughly investigated by the research community? There are any number of reasons an MD might not go along with "alternative" treatments--for instance, they may be aware that St. Johns Wort has not undergone rigorous, controlled testing, and they do not know whether chemicals in the herb might interfere with other drugs you are taking, or exacerbate your condition. It is simply irresponsible to prescribe therapies that aren't supported by good, research-based evidence. (This isn't to say you can't find an MD to go along with "alternative medicine." Many MDs do put profit above medical ethics.)
Now, for the Global Warming hypothesis. With this issue, unfortunately, leftists who have always wanted to control every aspect of our lives saw a perfect opportunity to try to do so. It was the perfect issue for them, because it allows them to mask their lust for ultimate power over other people's lives as being concern over the future of our planet, the only planet we know of that can support life. The ability of climate scientists to get funding does not depend on any global warming hypothesis, since there are any number of scientific reasons to fund their research (better prediction of hurricanes, better understanding of thunderstorms, etc.). Unfortunately, leftist politicians decided to direct funding towards "global warming" and away from other worthy areas of research, to the extent that almost any request for funding contains some catch-phrase about how it ties in to "global warming".
What the global warming fiasco illustrates is that freedom-hating leftists have an unbounded ability to twist any scientific subject into something that serves their agenda. It is *not* a condemnation of science or the scientific method.
Not, there is valid science and pseudo science serving a political idealogy. The very term Darwinian Evolution is meaningless. Darwin was the most famous of several 19th century scientists who came up with what eventually became the theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest does not mean the survival of the normative best which assumes a value judgement science can not make. Those organisms survive that adapt to their environment at a point in time. The saber tooth cat was an amazing killing machine but it couldn’t survive the end of the ice age. The possum survived and thrived. Which animal is normatively better? More beautiful? More fearsome?
My values cause me to evaluate eugenics as “bad”. Science has nothing to do with that judgement. Nuclear physics could be the science that allows Iran to destroy Israel. Certainly science won’t cause the destruction but the use of science could enable the Mullahs to follow the dictates of their religion. I guess you might label that “Einsteinian Physics”?
As I said already, a religion is a system of beliefs. Regardless of what anyone claims, the belief system which governs a persons life IS their religion.
Then, how do you define "beliefs"?
When I walk outside on a sunny day and see a blue sky, I don't have to "believe" the sky is blue; I can see that it is blue. I do not consider that knowledge based on evidence constitutes a belief system. Likewise, with the science of biology, I do not have to "believe" the evidence of evolution, because I can examine that evidence and see for myself that it supports the theory. A theory is a little more complicated, in that it is the unifying explanation of many observations that ties them together within a coherent framework. I do not consider that acceptance of a theory constitutes a belief system, either. Beliefs, to me, are those things for which we do not or cannot have direct evidence. Thus, to me, the theory of evolution is not a matter of belief.
Darwinist eugenicists have murdered well over a billion people in the last century, if that's not a threat I don't know what is.
Again, this is an attempt to discredit a scientific theory by attaching the acts of evil people to the theory. As allmendream pointed out, the Soviet Union, one of the most murderous regimes of the last century, did NOT accept evidence-based biology. They tried to impose "socialist" biology (Lysenkoism), which, as a working scientific model, did not and could not work. Because of the evidentiary nature of scientific investigation, it is impossible to advance science using any model that is not based in evidence. That would include the "creation science" that so many creationists so often promote; trying to use "creation science" as a basis for the formulation of hypotheses would quickly cause scientific discovery to grind to a halt, just like Lysenkoism did in the USSR.
For the most part, I will leave out refuting point by point the many statements you made based in the false premise that there are "followers" of Darwin, which is itself a result of the creationist invention of the fictional religion of Darwinism. I will, however, ask where the historical evidence that the mass murderers of the last century used the theory of evolution as justification for their pogroms? And by "historical evidence", I do *not* mean "evidence" produced by creationists which cannot be verified to exist outside of creationist writings.
One last point. Those of us who make science our careers do not worship science, any more than musicians worship music or accountants worship ledgers.
As I said earlier, EVERYONE worships SOMETHING. That thing may be God or science or Satan or the intellect or whatever. Though YOU may not worship science, there are plenty who do.
I have yet to meet anyone who worships science as if it were a religion. Since most people I know are scientists (not surprising, considering my profession), I think that I have a fairly good idea of the range of belief systems that exist among scientists.
What I want to know is this: If Darwin's theory cannot deal with origin problems, then what, really, can it have to say to us about "biology?"
The theory of evolution as formulated by Darwin, by others predating Darwin (Darwin's theory was not the first), or as it is currently understood, does not address the origin of life or nature of consciousness. It strictly deals with how biological organisms developed into such a large variety of forms, and how they continue to change forms (or evolve). It is very good for studying biology. It's not much good for anything else.
The only theory I know of that tries to explain the origin (of everything) is the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't address the origin of life, either.
Plus the other thing that is maddening about it is the theory itself seems to fall almost entirely outside the scope of the scientific method. It is more a historical science (described through a philosophical nominalist filter) than an experimental one....
The theory of evolution very much drives experimental science. I cannot imagine even trying to formulate a working hypothesis if I did not take into consideration various elements of the ToE. I do not think my work would be possible without it.
“I would ask you, how many scientists do you, personally, know?”
Many.
“How much of the scientific/medical literature have you read? “
A fair amount
“On what basis do you make the pronouncement that the majority of scientists treat science as “dogmatic belief”?”
Really? You misquote me and create a strawman and want to be taken seriously? ROTFLMAO! Try reading what I wrote rather than what you believe I wrote, then get back to me.
As for doctors and their odd (and unscientific) beliefs, read http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-of-john-lykoudis-revisited-crank-or-visionary/ and then, if you have any integrity at all, get back to me with your apologies. (Yes, plural.)
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
{{{CRICKETS}}}
WHAT various elements of ToE?
When you say "ToE" to me, I instantly think: Theory of Everything (the physicists are going for that). But what you evidently intended was: Theory of Evolution.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with theories of evolution.
I just think Darwin's totally STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN: It classifies man as nothing other than a "clever animal" with "adaptive skill..."
I strongly doubt that is how the Creator thinks about His Creation, individual man somehow being its epitome....
Any questions???
amd: At the CORE of Darwin’s theory is that there are variations within a population and variations that will arise within a population, and that those variations that lead to favorable reproductive outcomes will predominate in subsequent generations.
Spirited: Darwin’s theory is a house built on quicksand. It presupposes that life magically emerged from primordial water that either spontaneously created itself from nothing or has always existed.
What does Darwin’s theory have in common with the very ancient Babylonian Enuma Elish? Darwin’s primordial waters and the watery chaos (the void)of the Enuma Elish are one and the same thing, that is the one-substance out of which life and all things emerged/evolved and are parts of.
Darwinism is nothing more than tired old paganism (nature worship) reinvented and revamped for modernists such as yourself. It is utterly vain to attribute life to non-life.
People have been self-selecting for millenia.
Big difference in having the intelligentsia do the selecting for you.
“You’re hatred of creationism is blinding you to objective, rational thought on the matter”
Spirited: Is it creationists he hates or is it really the case that his hatred and fear of the living Creator is transferred onto the only individuals within reach?
Hatred makes one both irrational and blind to the fact that irrational thoughts lead to insensible utterances.
Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is also a form of “making it personal.”
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is also a form of “making it personal.”
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.