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.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
To the best of my knowledge, asking a person what their religious beliefs are has never been a violation of the RF rules.
There have been plenty of personal attacks on this thread, but trisham's post isn't one of them.
Out of curiosity, WHY are you so reluctant to reveal your religious beliefs? You've said that people who believe the first few chapters of Genesis are "ignorant," so what exactly do you believe?
Darwinism is about more than just what Charles Darwin wrote.
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.
Once more, the DARWIN FAMILY founded the eugenics movement and were leaders of it for nearly a century.
As for your oft-repeated, yet unsubstantiated, claim that the Nazis rejected Darwinism, you might want to read this (I have included a few key passages for your convenience:
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi EugenicsEven the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense.
___________________
During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."
___________________
During the Reich's early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.
In 1934, as Germany's sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe upon returning from Germany ebulliently bragged to a key colleague, "You will be interested to know, that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought.…I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."
___________________
At the time of Rockefeller's endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that Institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer's early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the Institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenic press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed up by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenic doctor's journal he edited, that Germany's war would yield a "total solution to the Jewish problem."
Verschuer had a long-time assistant. His name was Josef Mengele. On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, "My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer [captain] and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer [Himmler]."
___________________
After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity--an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense. To no avail. They were found guilty.
However, Mengele's boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re-established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade "human genetics." Typical was an exchange July 25, 1946 when Popenoe wrote Verschuer, "It was indeed a pleasure to hear from you again. I have been very anxious about my colleagues in Germany…. I suppose sterilization has been discontinued in Germany?" Popenoe offered tidbits about various American eugenic luminaries and then sent various eugenic publications. In a separate package, Popenoe sent some cocoa, coffee and other goodies.
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.
It's not "guilt by association." The Darwin family developed eugenics, the "elites" loved it, many nations started eugenic sterilization programs and Germany started killing those he deemed "unfit." The Nazis didn't somehow "distort" eugenic theory, they simply took it to the logical conclusion.
Thanks, wagglebee. I also did some reading yesterday. Much appears to have been missing from my education regarding Darwin and eugenics. I suspect that is not terribly unusual.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
Who died and left you RM?
And you think YOUR admonition carries any weight?
Fess up. You’re always professing to be a Christian, especially implying that you’re Catholic, and yet never answer the question even in a general sense.
I have directly stated several times that I am a nondenominational Christian, and certainly not a Catholic.
You may be confused because every time you make your idiotic ‘acceptance of evolution = atheism’ argument I point out that the Pope accepts evolution.
But then again you don't even think the Pope is Christian.
That right there is amusing!
Perhaps because religious Christians and Jews don't denounce Genesis as "ignorant."
You may be confused because every time you make your idiotic ‘acceptance of evolution = atheism’ argument I point out that the Pope accepts evolution.
Just about everyone accepts certain aspects of the theory of evolution.
Are horses and zebras related? Almost certainly.
Do animals have natural defenses to adapt to certain climates? Of course they do.
Did mankind "evolve" from a sea-dwelling amoeba? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Ah yes, the inherent contradiction at the heart of the Creationist delusion.
They accept evolution when they need to explain how we got all modern terrestrial species from those few that could fit on a boat - at a speed and with a power far beyond that proposed by evolutionary biology.
Yet they claim to not accept evolution - despite when they need it, accepting it at many hundreds of times the observed rate.
You find nothing objectionable about Zebras and Horses being related, but find it an impossibility that humans and chimps could be related by common descent?
Are you aware that the genetic difference between a Horse and a Zebra is much greater than the genetic difference between a human and a chimpanzee?
How is it that such a large change is perfectly reasonable over a very short time period - but much less of a genetic change is absolutely impossible even after six or seven million years?
Can you explain to me how you explain that to yourself?
That should be amusing!
So, if you're not Catholic, why appeal to the pope? Not to mention that I would find it unlikely that he'd ascribe to YOUR narrow, rigid definition of evolution and denial of the reality of Genesis.
But then again you don't even think the Pope is Christian.
Where'd I say that? Provide a link to the quote, please, since you claim to be a scientist and acknowledge the necessity of backing up your statements.
I somehow doubt you will.
When I pointed out long ago that the majority of Christians throughout history were Catholic you asked how I KNEW they were actually Christians!
Why appeal to the Pope? As an example of a man of faith, a Biblical scholar par excellence, who accepts the scientific theory of evolution - that man descended from non human living forms - and that the Earth is far more than just a few thousand years old. You see I am not blinded by sectarian hate and attempt to deny the Christianity of any who disagree with me.
You on the other hand....
The inherent contradiction is that this thread was NEVER about evolution.
Trolls who are uncomfortable addressing the truth about Darwinism have tried to make it about evolution.
It's rather ironic the way the left idolizes certain people, people like FDR, the Kennedys, Castro, Marx and Darwin are beyond reproach in their eyes.
Please provide a VERIFIABLE QUOTE where ANY POPE has made this statement.
Or are you just making it up?
More guilt by association drivel.
Afraid to answer the question then I must conclude.
You decry Darwin, but use his theory when necessary, say you don’t believe in evolution, but think it happens when it happens at many times the observed rate, and you think a large genetic difference can be accomplished in a short time, but a much smaller genetic difference is impossible even after seven million years!
And you cannot explain your own contradictions!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!
This might be interesting.
“The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other in itself constitutes a significant argument in favor of the theory [of evolution].”
“if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God”
Do you really not know?!?!!?
You have been here for years arguing this and you are THIS blissfully unaware?
It takes all kinds I suppose.
Do you use this to defend Hitler?
Afraid to answer the question then I must conclude.
Feel free to conclude whatever you want.
You decry Darwin, but use his theory when necessary, say you don’t believe in evolution,
I haven't used his theory. I've opined that certainly some of his observations were valid.
And you cannot explain your own contradictions!
I'm not aware of any contradictions by me.
Pope Benedict XVI said....
while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Is this your ignorance of the position of those you are arguing against or a demonstration of intentional dishonesty?
Do you even realize that you are conflating and equivocating the term "evolution" denoting "change", and saying that the same observation of change demonstrates "descent from common ancestry"?
Can you honestly not see a difference? Or perhaps intellectual honesty not a big concern...
“The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other in itself constitutes a significant argument in favor of the theory [of evolution].”
“if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God”
Your claim was that the pope "accepts the scientific theory of evolution - that man descended from non human living forms." NONE of these quotes demonstrate this, there are a lot of "ifs" and statements that it's "acceptable" to believe it under certain conditions, but there is NOTHING that indicates that they believe that man descended from non-human living forms.
You have been here for years arguing this and you are THIS blissfully unaware?
I've been arguing WHAT for years?
I systematically AVOID evolution threads, I can't remember the the last time I posted one if I ever have.
You might need to defend the Creationist revisionist history of this idiotic and illogical guilt by association and appeal to consequences article.
No? You don't think it a contradiction that you can fully accept a large genetic difference over a small amount of time, but not a small genetic difference over six to seven million years?
You don't think it a contradiction that your only explanation for the diversity of species is Darwin's theory, the only explanation for human diversity, the only explanation for antibiotic resistance - yet you decry the man whose theory is the only explanation you are able to use?
How did the numerous terrestrial species all arise from those few that could fit on a boat of known dimensions a few thousand years ago?
No explanation? But you opine that certainly some of Darwin's observations were valid? Which ones - the ones that would enable one species to give rise to several?
Still think you are not contradicting yourself?
Can you explain to me how all modern terrestrial species arose form those few that could fit on a boat of known dimensions sometime somewhat recently in the past?
What was the mechanism for how they got here then?
Would not one of the fox “kind” giving rise to all the present day fox species be an example of common descent?
How do you explain it?
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.