I’m in agreement about disgust for Margaret Sanger and her perverse racist views, but pulling poor old Charles Darwin into it stretches credulity. The Spartans were practicing their own eugenics program 2,000 years before Margaret Sanger, and anyone who’s worked with livestock knew about selective breeding - and there have been other cultures who tried to apply that knowledge to humanity without any knowledge at all of evolution, starting with the king’s harem and systems with arranged marriages. From what I know about Darwin, he was a believing Christian, a really decent man, a person who would be utterly disgusted and revulsed over what people like Sanger, Stalin, and other did with his ideas. If Sanger is roasting in hell for her beliefs, then Darwin is with the Lord crying over the sins of God’s children, wondering why anyone would use ideas from his observations of finches and worms to kill children and wipe out whole races.
And if you’re going to go after Charles Darwin, why not go after Lord Alfred Wallace, whose contribution to the idea of evolution is just as profound as Darwin - and maybe even more important? Just asking.
Probably because Wallace retreated back to religious mysticism. Have you noticed that the YEC'ers always attack Darwin rather than the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?
As far as I know, Margaret Sanger never considered herself a Spartanist, however she most certainly did consider herself an evolutionist. But you ever find any documentation to that effect, be sure and post it, and I’ll be sure to ping my list :o)
PS As for your comments about your disgust for Margaret Sanger, I couldn’t agree with you more!
Well maybe you should read this: Euvolution: Darwinism-Eugenics
From what I know about Darwin, he was a believing Christian,
He was an atheist.