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.
The term “Darwinism” is used by supporters of the theory of biological evolution and as used here is obviously the intended meaning.
Yes, it, Darwinism, can define just as it can be said “the law defines legal and illegal,” or some act as falling under proscription.
Of course anyone can grab the phrase, “survival of the fittest” and apply to whatever they wish with the same desire to appear to appeal to an immutable force that is functioning in the background.
But as in the case of biological Darwinism it is no more than saying, “If you're so smart, howscum you ain't rich?”.
It is both self justification and self definition. What doesn't survive wasn't “fit” to survive.
Be my guest, by all means. But I think your appellation to be misplaced. The briefest perusal of merely some of the excerpts of antagonist comments (speaking of pettifoggery) on the thread’s main thesis should be sufficient to illustrate that Mendelian genetics is not at the heart of these discussions:
“Don’t forget those evil ‘Geologists’ And them ‘Physicists.’ And don’t even get me started on them damned for all time ‘Astrophysicists’ and ‘Chemists.’”
“Or perhaps you would burn me at the stake while assuring me I’m damned to hell?”
“Those darn physicists and their ‘theory of gravity’ that they use to help calculate the use of BOMBS!”
“When that tired old strawman about TTOE leading to Eugenics was trotted out, I knew where this was going (note: there is no study of science named “Darwinism” any more than Astronomy is “Capurnicism”)”
“And what about heliocentrism? There’s another absolutely diabolical doctrine started by so-called ‘scientists.’”
“The Earth is the center of the universe, and these infernal allegations that it is round ... don’t get me started.”
“I say we burn down the observatory...”
“Well I suggest you get me zapped from FR. I don’t know of anything called Darwinism or evolutionism, they sound like religions to me.”
The historical record is pretty clear that what so exited Marx about Darwin’s magnificent insight was that he saw in the theory a confirmation of his (Marx’s) thesis that God does not exist. A number of modern eminent scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, have carried this idea even further in proposing that the question of God’s existence is an issue for Science (we must assume he means all of science) to determine, and that the answer is, no, God does not exist. Thus has the argument of all scientists of Atheist persuasion become that science generally, and evolution specifically “proves” that God does not exist.
What I find more than passing strange is that, of all the laws and theories discovered and developed by Science, more than any other it is the Theory of Evolution that has inspired so many eminent scientists to conclude that; 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. And, remarkably, all this in blatant defiance of their (the scientists’) own rules of scientific methodology.
In fact, a resort to Science generally, and Evolution specifically, has become all Liberalism’s default position in its ongoing effort to deny the existence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in Western Civilization culture, and the marvel of American Exceptionalism. It is not Science, but Christianity, Western Civilization and American Exceptionalism that are under attack in our society, and it is the corruptions and perversions of Science that are being used as a primary weapon attacking Christianity, Western Civilization and American Exceptionalism. Indeed, all Liberalism (that is, all Socialist/Marxist thought) seemly stands ready now to proclaim all three “unfit.” Even 0bama, himself, has deemed it proper to recently proclaim that the free enterprise system, the very rock of Christianity, Western Civilization and American Exceptionalism, has never been “fit.”
Those who come into this forum under the color of defending Science would do well to direct their fire at the corruption of the science of “climate change” and at the perversions of science that it claims “proves” God does not exist. We have to think that the fact that they do not do so is no accident.
”Of course anyone can grab the phrase, “survival of the fittest” and apply to whatever they wish with the same desire to appear to appeal to an immutable force that is functioning in the background.”
Of course. So you do understand (and apparently agree with) my point.
So does your horizon expand to include religious and political Darwinism, or does Darwinism, for you, have no connotations other than scientific, with no following religious or political conclusions?
Amen, brother.
As a scientist, I object strongly to the characterization of the central theory of my discipline as a crackpot religion. There is, in fact, no religious belief called “Darwinism”. Nor is there a branch of science called “Darwinism”. Unless there is Newtonism, Einsteinism, Gallileoism, etc. Or would those be religious beliefs?
Some atheists might try to use the theory of evolution as “proof” of the nonexistance of God, but the ToE cannot prove that any more than any other branch of science.
I don’t need to point out that the use/misuse of science is completely in the hands of the scientist. Several people have already pointed that out in this thread.
Are you speaking of the theory of evolution or Darwinism as a whole?
There is, in fact, no religious belief called “Darwinism”.
Religion is defined as a system of beliefs.
EVERYONE has a system of beliefs by which they run their lives and EVERYONE, whether they will admit it or or even aware of it, believes that their system of beliefs is superior to all others. Now, this does not mean that a person's declared religion is actually their governing system of beliefs, but the FACT is that every person has something that they devoutly worship whether it's God, Satan, science, their own intellect or something else.
Unless there is Newtonism, Einsteinism, Gallileoism, etc. Or would those be religious beliefs?
See above.
Some atheists might try to use the theory of evolution as “proof” of the nonexistance of God, but the ToE cannot prove that any more than any other branch of science.
I learned years ago not to really concern myself with evolution. While evolution may be the "public face" of Darwinism, it has ALWAYS been a secondary concern to Darwinists. What they have done is to USE evolution to justify their evil agenda, Hitler's idea of a "master race" is nothing more than a restatement of "survival of the fittest."
Moreover, I don't see where Darwinists have ever really spent much time trying to prove the nonexistence of God; however, they have spent a great deal of time playing god with the entire world.
I don’t need to point out that the use/misuse of science is completely in the hands of the scientist.
No, but the CORE belief of Darwinism is eugenics and eugenics isn't science at all, it is an evil philosophy that has ravaged the world for over a century.
I posted this the other day, but here's what Darwinist atheism gets us:
Rachel Carson (author of "Silent Spring" which resulted in the DDT ban): 50-80 MILLION deaths and rising every year.
Margaret Sanger: 50 MILLION deaths worldwide EVERY YEAR (1 BILLION to 1.2 BILLION worldwide since 1900).
Stalin: 13 MILLION+ deaths.
Hitler: 12 MILLION+ deaths.
Mao: 50-80 MILLION deaths.
So, in just the last century, Darwinist atheism is responsible for the deaths of AT LEAST 1.125 BILLION INNOCENT people. (And note that this only counts the genocide that can be directly attributed to them, if the wars initiated by Stalin, Mao and Hitler were included there would be close to 100 MILLION more.)
If you research the Darwin family (especially Francis Galton and Leonard Darwin), you will see that many abandoned scientific pursuits early on and embraced eugenics. It is IMPOSSIBLE to divorce the Darwin family from eugenics and to pretend that this isn't their true "religion" would require one to totally ignore over a century of evil.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Excellent point.
God gave man dominion over animals, so it is permissible to do this, but even then it's an imperfect science. Look at horse racing, there hasn't been a Triple Crown winner in over thirty years; however, the science behind breeding (genetics, etc.), veterinary medicine, and nutrition are light years beyond what they were in the 1970s.
We will NEVER achieve perfection, but we can accept that we are perfect in that He created each of us EXACTLY THE WAY He wanted to.
Once again, there is no religion of Darwinism. As far as I can tell, the term is used to try to discredit a theory of science that *some* people feel somehow threatens Christianity. I do have faith that, eventually, people will get over this perceived threat to Christianity, just like they got over the supposed antitheistic theory of heliocentrism. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Catholic church un-excommunicated Galileo, within the last few decades.
Science concerns itself purely with what can be observed and measured in a systematic fashion. It does not, and cannot, concern itself with the metaphysical. We do not, and never will, have the ability to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. Anyone who tries to claim that science proves that God doesn't exist (whether they're using the ToE or some other theory as their justification) is a liar.
Furthermore, the use of science as a rationale for committing atrocities is not a condemnation of science. Someone who is set on committing atrocities and who has the power is going to do so, no matter what. It isn't because of some pseudoreligion called "Darwinism" that Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, etc., committed their atrocities. They did that because they were fundamentally evil people, drunk with their own power.
If studying or using the theory of evolution has some strange power to turn people into monsters, then I must ask: why aren't thousands of scientists like myself busy committing atrocities right this minute? Could it be because our sense of morality does not come from the scientific theories that guide our research in the lab, but comes from our families and society?
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. It's just a profession.
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. It's just a profession.You may speak for yourself. In my opinion, all too often scientists do, in fact, treat science as dogmatic belief. Try and get a medical doctor - a scientist by training, to consider alternative medical care, even as basic as aspirin instead of acetaminophen or St. Johns Wort instead of prozac. Another example, the current "Global Warming" hysteria has been fed by scientists who have converted belief into falsification of evidence.
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.
As far as I can tell, the term is used to try to discredit a theory of science that *some* people feel somehow threatens Christianity.
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.
I do have faith that, eventually, people will get over this perceived threat to Christianity, just like they got over the supposed antitheistic theory of heliocentrism.
Eugenicists kill over a million people each week, that's hardly a "perceived threat."
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Catholic church un-excommunicated Galileo, within the last few decades.
Yet again, the core beliefs of people like Galileo and Newton didn't involve a twisted philosophy that resulted in their followers committing mass murder, the same cannot be said for the Darwinists.
Science concerns itself purely with what can be observed and measured in a systematic fashion. It does not, and cannot, concern itself with the metaphysical.
Your point?
We do not, and never will, have the ability to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. Anyone who tries to claim that science proves that God doesn't exist (whether they're using the ToE or some other theory as their justification) is a liar.
Yes, but mankind DOES have the ability to play god and that's what Darwinists do.
Perhaps you should go back and read some of my other posts on this thread. The theory of evolution is a red herring, it has NEVER been at the core of Darwinism, it is a device they use and nothing more. The people who want to focus on evolution almost invariably do so in order to avoid talking about eugenics.
Furthermore, the use of science as a rationale for committing atrocities is not a condemnation of science. Someone who is set on committing atrocities and who has the power is going to do so, no matter what. It isn't because of some pseudoreligion called "Darwinism" that Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, etc., committed their atrocities. They did that because they were fundamentally evil people, drunk with their own power.
You really need to look at the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, much of this evil occurred BECAUSE many people advocated eugenics. Prominent people were avowed eugenicists and their rhetoric is even found in one of America's more infamous Supreme Court rulings.
If studying or using the theory of evolution has some strange power to turn people into monsters, then I must ask: why aren't thousands of scientists like myself busy committing atrocities right this minute?
Again, why are you confining Darwinism to evolution. Darwinism IS NOT evolution, evolution is merely a small component of Darwinism.
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.
Agreed, and their influence is insidious.
Well, Galileo was a devout Roman Catholic right up to the day he died; Newton declared a Creator God, Whom he described as: "The Lord of Life with His creatures." I strongly doubt Darwin had any such spiritual understanding.
Note, Newton was a monotheist, but not a Deist. He believed that the mechanistic tendency of his theories would eventually produce disorder in the world, and that God had to step in from time to time to set matters aright. Newton was perhaps more theologically Jewish than Christian; the point is he, like Galileo, believed in God.
Darwin, on the other hand, lived in a world of agnosticism bordering on atheism, a world that believed above all in the infallibility of human reason, a world that eclipsed God by putting the figure of Man and his seemingly limitless "potential" in the forefront, as the only true object worthy of devotion.
Worldviews have consequences — and you, wagglebee, have given several powerful examples of the actual historical consequences of the Darwinist worldview. Thank you so very much!
creationist threads are just a way to discredit FR.
evolution and political eugenics are not related. This is just a background noise for the left to slap conservatives on the whole insurance abortion/contraception debate.
or worse...
To this day man seems to shake his fist at God and declare that he knows better which child should live and which should die - thinking himself brilliant to conclude that a person with Down's Syndrome for instance wouldn't have a life worth living. In making such a decision and acting on it, he declares himself "god" and denies God Who IS.
(s) stop the theory of helio centric planetary motions, smash the microscopes. (/s)
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.