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.
Well sure. Seems to be a given that any ‘theory’ that is based on the ‘death of the unfit’ is going to end up causing the death of ‘the unfit’.
Here's another, Steven Pinker, Harvard Professor of Psychology (a "soft" science) - recognized by the National Academy of Sciences with the Troland Award for an evolutionary basis for language - obviously influential and respected - rationalized infanticide in this New York Times article:
What makes a living being a person with a right not to be killed? Animal-rights extremists would seem to have the easiest argument to make: that all sentient beings have a right to life. But champions of that argument must conclude that delousing a child is akin to mass murder; the rest of us must look for an argument that draws a smaller circle. Perhaps only the members of our own species, Homo sapiens, have a right to life? But that is simply chauvinism; a person of one race could just as easily say that people of another race have no right to life.
oh, okay then, I guess it is a good thing the government does not direct any money at evolution - right?!
Let’s see - evolution is generally promoting godlessness and ever since the scopes monkey trial the government has continually and increasingly promoted godlessness.
People like this disgust me!
And that brings me to another, Peter Singer - Princeton Professor of Bioethics (ahem...) well known for his animal liberation work having similar ideas about abortion:
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[20]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[21]
Luke 12:7 - But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
So colour me a kook!
Singer has just blown the PETA argument for “animal rights” out of the water. Singer would, of course, disagree. He would claim that animals have rights not permitted unborn children.
If modern physics and cosmology are as 'apolitical' as this site indicates, the current definition of "apolitical" doesn't lend much support for objectivity in 'evolution'.
"Natural Philosophy" is the name by which "physics" was known in the time of Isaac Newton, and well into the 19th century. We return to it mainly in order to emphasize that the more profound and circumspect approach to nature during those years is needed once again. We seek renewed respect for philosophy, especially for logic; and also for the everyday application of reason and of respect for evidence known as common sense -- which should be considered a foundation for, rather than a contrast to, genuine science."
"Modern physics regularly disdains both logic and common sense, and prefers interpretations of evidence favoring the bizarre and irrational. The resulting theories reflect the real world much less than they do the special biases of the interpreters--as suggested by the critical movement of constructivism, based largely on the thought of Thomas Kuhn. Other and more logical interpretations of all the same evidence and applications (even of nuclear energy) alleged to confirm special relativity, etc., are quite possible."
"Reigning paradigms in physics and cosmology have for many decades been protected from open challenge by extreme intolerance, excluding debate about the most crucial problems from major journals and meetings."
I am shocked, shocked at the level of intolerance among 'scientists'. Anybody see any creationists at this site?
Anybody studied anything by Karl Popper lately?
Which begs the question of WHEN a human being becomes a "person."
It takes up to two years after birth for the brain — ~200 cm3 at birth — to reach its full size — ~1200 – 1300 cm3 — and get fully "wired up." Is the child a non-person during this period?
Or should we use some other criterion for "personhood," such as language ability?
The human child is essentially helpless without parental care until about age 12. During this period, since the child cannot take care of himself, can we regard him as a "person" yet? I.e., before he is independent, autonomous?
Depending on what criterion one chooses to apply, one can have open season on children for lack of "personhood" for up to twelve years after birth....
This is the sort of thing that results from Singer's twisted logic. There is obviously something profoundly wrong about it.
The only way to avoid this slippery slope is simply to accept that a human child in utero is a person from day one; i.e., from the moment of conception.
I believe this is God's intention. Which is probably why Singer is generating all kinds of mindless alternative proposals.... He would "be god" himself, and brooks no competition to his own singular preeminence, either from God or man.
To say he holds human beings in general contempt would probably be an understatement. Yet it is clear that he has no lack of high regard for himself.
Why would any sane person listen to him? He is a most strangely disordered man.
JMHO, FWIW
Thanks so much for writing, dear YHAOS!
They've got a foothold on an unborn child and propose open season on infants - but there's nothing to stop them from claiming the child is not a viable person until he's twelve.
For them, the law of the jungle overrides all else - bloody, tooth and claw.
To say that Singer holds humans in general contempt is stating the case mildly. By his lights, Singer could have had no objection to the sight of Japanese soldiers tossing Chinese babies in the air and catching them on the tips of their bayonets (a common practice during the Second Sino-Japanese War).
But, I do not find Singer “strangely” disordered at all. I think his disorder very ordinary. It is to be commonly found among those who seem to have the peculiar idea that all wisdom can be gleamed from a science textbook and that any values otherwise gathered are no more then “existentialist nonsense” or “philosophical thought meandering.”
Thanks, betty. Another illuminating boop beep.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear YHAOS!
Oy. There isn't a speck of logical deduction contained within your "example". Anyone can say anything happened as a result of some arbitrary belief, but that does not come even remotely close to being a logical proof. You actually have to have supporting evidence.
Logical deductions are always based on philosophical beliefs.
Given this statement, and your other post in which you described science as being philosophical mumbo-jumbo and philosophy as having a logical evidentiary basis, I am left with only two logical possibilities here. Either you really do have an extraordinarily muddled understanding of both philosophy and science, or you are what is popularly known as a troll. I am leaning towards the latter interpretation.
A search of when and where and to what purpose the word 'knowledge' was used in the Bible is a curious 'study'. Also the number of times and places wherein the words ignorant and sottish (means stupid) are used as well.
Science has become socialized by the man made creation of a methodology for the sole purpose to claim and pretend there was/is no Creator.
The same man made scientific methodology was used to develop the hysterical fear mongering 'man-made' climate change.... Well, in a manner of speaking they are only slightly 'right', meaning these gods of knowledge are going to finally find that hot spot they claim is coming...
It's called the fallacy of affirming the consequent and that's exactly how belief in evolution works.
"Given this statement, and your other post in which you described science as being philosophical mumbo-jumbo and philosophy as having a logical evidentiary basis, I am left with only two logical possibilities here. Either you really do have an extraordinarily muddled understanding of both philosophy and science, or you are what is popularly known as a troll. I am leaning towards the latter interpretation."
Misrepresenting the statements of others in order to draw an unflattering characterization isn't a substantive argument.
The same man made scientific methodology was used to develop the hysterical fear mongering 'man-made' climate change.... Well, in a manner of speaking they are only slightly 'right', meaning these gods of knowledge are going to finally find that hot spot they claim is coming...
Are you seriously trying to claim that the only thing scientists do is try to find ways to disprove religion? Do you have any proof that that is the only activity we engage in, as scientists? That the government spends billions on science for the sole purpose of trying to disprove the existence of God?
That is just plain crazy conspiracy theory talk.
Do you have proof of your defamatory claims? Then present it. While you're at it, you'll need to come up with a plausible explanation of how the tens of millions of scientific studies that are indexed in PubMed and the other scientific databases came into existence.
If you can't present proof that scientists don't actually do science, then you are bearing false witness against thousands of people by repeating such untruths. That's a sin, you know. Given that bearing false witness has its own commandment, I'm guessing that God takes lying about people pretty seriously.
Religion is your word. The Heavenly Father is not a 'religion' He is reality. And that big fat TOE is a godless estate created for the sole purpose of creating a 'welfare' program for the survival of those deemed the fittest. TOE never saved anybody but sure has made fast work of the deterioration of the morals in this nation.
That is just plain crazy conspiracy theory talk.
Even the Heavenly Father foretold there would be conspiracies and warn those that 'believe' in the Savior His only Begotten Son to NOT be deceived. Personally I consider the hide and seek of pretending that the TOE resides outside of that hot steamy pot of primordial soup to be the grandaddy of conspiracies. TOE has no cough cough, beginning, and the end has yet to be measured tested and manipulated.
Do you have proof of your defamatory claims? Then present it. While you're at it, you'll need to come up with a plausible explanation of how the tens of millions of scientific studies that are indexed in PubMed and the other scientific databases came into existence.
All the proof required to demonstrate that TOE is a hoax is to dig up that artist created transition chart that use to get planted in every high school biology book. The most the 'religious' dogma of TOE has ever demonstrated is the commonality of substances used to form flesh bodies. It has never demonstrated origins nor will it ever. But that methodology is considered a holy ritual by some of the most knowledgeable of worldly thought.
If you can't present proof that scientists don't actually do science, then you are bearing false witness against thousands of people by repeating such untruths. That's a sin, you know. Given that bearing false witness has its own commandment, I'm guessing that God takes lying about people pretty seriously.
Pure science would never ever have the objective to prove that the Creator did not do what He said He did... Lying is a sin and misleading the young minds telling them they are just part of the animal kingdom ranks right up there with some of the biggest lies ever told.
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.