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 shouldnt 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 Lenins desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwins 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 thats ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution, said Owen.
Thank you so much for the links!
Surely a competent scientist would recognize a non sequitur before posting?
"Peer-review is a quality-control measure. By having people review an article for scientific plausibility and accuracy, we can filter out the junk science that, if published, would quickly make science lose all credibility."
The only place 'credibility' has in science is as a tool to convince non-scientists that what they are being told should be believed. An emotional appeal to 'credibility' is the antithesis of science. Surely a competent scientist would recognize that.
"That whole scenario of "gatekeepers" of science just doesn't mesh with reality."
Sure it does. You just proved it.
1) Fossil evidence
2) Photographic evidence
The fact that we can look at pictures of giraffes in their native habitats and see tall trees strongly suggests that tall trees also existed in the past.
And what was the selection pressure which led to the trees getting taller?
One selection pressure (but not the only one) would be that short trees keep getting eaten by all the short herbivores. Have you ever noticed that in a pasture containing cows, the height above the ground of the leaves and branches of the trees in the pasture almost exactly coincides with how high the cows can reach? *That* is a selective pressure.
For that matter, what were the list of genetic changes all of which would have to occur in tandem in order for the neck to get longer successfully?
Probably not as many as you would think. A random mutation in a promoter of a gene responsible for vertebrae formation that causes the neck vertebrae to grow longer would be sufficient. The muscles, ligaments, and blood vessels would automatically grow to fit (just like they always fit people of different heights and bone structures). The only other change might be vascular changes to strengthen vessels against the higher pressures resulting from greater elevation of the head; that would not have to occur simultaneously with the vertebrae elongation. Evolution does not occur through sudden massive changes throughout the entire genome; it progresses change by change.
Has anyone *done* a bioengineering study on the giraffe to see if there are any discontinuous physical characteristics which would require elemental changes to aspects of the physiology, once the neck got beyond a certain length? And the genetic changes necessary for the individual proteins coded for, the macroscopic structures, and the inbred ('instinctive') behaviours to accomodate these things?
Yes, people research all of those issues, and if you are genuinely interested in finding the latest research on biomechanical features of giraffes, I'm sure you can find it in a zoological/veterinary research database. Giraffe-specific research is not generally found in PubMed (although studies covering all of those aspects of physiology are there, if they concern humans, pets, or laboratory animals).
Although I did find this in PubMed:
Pressure profile and morphology of the arteries along the giraffe limb.
Østergaard KH, Bertelsen MF, Brøndum ET, Aalkjaer C, Hasenkam JM, Smerup M, Wang T, Nyengaard JR, Baandrup U.
Zoophysiology, Department of Biological Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. kho@hst.aau.dk
Abstract
Giraffes are the tallest animals on earth and the effects of gravity on their cardiovascular system have puzzled physiologists for centuries. The authors measured arterial and venous pressure in the foreleg of anesthetized giraffes, suspended in upright standing position, and determined the ratio between tunica media and lumen areas along the length of the femoral/tibial arteries in the hindleg. Volume fraction of elastin, density of vasa vasorum and innervations was estimated by stereology. Immunohistological staining with S100 was used to examine the innervation. The pressure increase in the artery and vein along the foreleg was not significantly different from what was expected on basis of gravity. The area of the arterial lumen in the hindleg decreased towards the hoof from 11.2 ± 4.2 to 0.6 ± 0.5 mm(2) (n = 10, P = 0.001), but most of this narrowing occurred within 2-4 cm immediately below the knee. This abrupt narrowing was associated with a marked increase in media to lumen area ratio (from 1.2 ± 0.5 to 7.8 ± 2.5; P = 0.001), and a decrease in mean volume fraction of elastin from 38 ± 6% proximal to the narrowing to 5.8 ± 1.1% distally (P = 0.001). The narrowing had a six-fold higher innervation density than the immediate distal and proximal regions. The sudden narrowing was also observed in the hind legs of neonates, indicating that it does not develop as an adaptation to the high transmural pressure in the standing giraffe. More likely it represents a preadaptation to the high pressures experienced by adult giraffes.
Can you actually demonstrate this, or is it nothing more than hand-waving to be accompanied by personal attacks on the questioner?
I don't engage in personal attacks, and I endeavor to show the evidence, or at least have it available, to support anything I say.
Credibility means that the correct questions were asked, the experiments were designed appropriately to answer those questions, the appropriate controls were used, and the conclusions fit the experimental evidence. I do not see where "emotional appeal" comes into play here.
Sure it does. You just proved it.
If, despite being shown how much effort is put into making science accessible to everyone, you still choose to believe that there are gatekeepers (who, by definition, exist to keep the knowledge out of your reach), then spending more time trying to demonstrate the accessibility of science is a total waste.
12. "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
14."To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." - Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization
15. "We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money." - Arthur Schlesinger Jr., 'The CFR Journal Foreign Affairs', August 1975.
18. "No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation 22. "In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. "An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers." U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917
38."The case for government by elites is irrefutable" Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?
'Credibility' is simply the generally-accepted opinion of the group. The whole peer-review process is nothing more than one big appeal to the popular opinion of philosophical naturalists. No one with a shred of critical-thinking skills would be surprised that the conclusions beg the question of philosophical naturalism.
"If, despite being shown how much effort is put into making science accessible to everyone, you still choose to believe that there are gatekeepers (who, by definition, exist to keep the knowledge out of your reach), then spending more time trying to demonstrate the accessibility of science is a total waste."
I suppose that the best thing for you to do is to set something up that will allow you to declare victory and abandon the field.
“People use science to discover things.
Creationism isn’t useful at all in that regard.”
I would say that perhaps creationism is irrelevant in most scientific endeavors. But, it certainly doesn’t hinder. One can believe in creationism and make all kinds of discoveries and applications in the biological and medical sciences...and have done so! Whether one believes in evolution or creation matters not at all regarding discovery and application. So in that sense, perhaps they are both irrelevant. The creationist and the evolutionist are both making scientific progress.
“If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”
Spirited: Hitler was a Darwinian pantheist, thus when he speaks of “nature” and “she” he refers to an immanent goddess-force (the progressive process) working through and within nature and history.
As the myth goes, over the course of millions of years of evolution, life finally emerged/evolved out of non-lifebearing matter (primordial pond scum). After evolving for another million years or so,an impersonal goddess-force emerged. Since coming into being, the goddess has been progressively unfolding (evolving) “throughout hundreds of thousands of years” in a work that involves the natural selection (predestination) of “an evolutionary higher stage of being,” or god-consciousness.
“If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”
Spirited: Hitler was a Darwinian pantheist, thus when he speaks of “nature” and “she” he refers to an immanent goddess-force (the progressive process) working through and within nature and history.
As the myth goes, over the course of millions of years of evolution, life finally emerged/evolved out of non-lifebearing matter (primordial pond scum). After evolving for another million years or so,an impersonal goddess-force emerged. Since coming into being, the goddess has been progressively unfolding (evolving) “throughout hundreds of thousands of years” in a work that involves the natural selection (predestination) of “an evolutionary higher stage of being,” or god-consciousness.
GD: Are you claiming that evolution is steady, predictable and replicable?
View Replies = "No replies."
Dan, let me know if and when you ever get one......
mt: But neither does it hinder application and discovery, apparently. A lot of discoveries about the natural world, and applications from those discoveries, have been made by those who believe God created the world by miraculous means. Believing special, supernatural creation does not preclude discovery about the natural world been going on for centuries. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.
amd: It sure seems to hinder an understanding of biological processes, estimation of age of objects artifacts and species, and amazingly enough even acceptance that the Earth orbits the Sun.
In your dreams.....
Tell that to Newton who developed the scientific method based on the reasoning that since God was a God of order, He created an orderly universe which could be examined and investigated by systematic observations.
The claim that believing in a supernatural cause of the universe automatically precludes the use of the scientific method in investigating it, is totally bogus.
The universe is able to be studied by the scientific method because the method works, not because of how the universe got here.
Thanks for answering that comment. That’s exactly what I was thinking.
“What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, father of the sexual revolution Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?”
Spirited: All of them hold in common two things.
First, their God-less naturalism and by extension, their lack of a source for life, consciousness, soul, and spirit. Six centuries before Jesus Christ Buddha already knew that if the living, transcendent Creator does not exist then there is no source for life.
In Psalm 30:3, David praises and thanks the Lord for bringing his “soul out of the grave,” meaning that without the living God Who is the only source of life and being, David was nothing. He was a walking dead men.
In freely rejecting the living God, Buddha, Hegel, Marx, Sanger, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler negated the source of their being, meaning that they freely chose to reduce themselves to nothing. They chose death instead of life. This being the case, God granted them their wish, meaning that henceforth all of them joined the ranks of the walking dead. They were the Walking Dead, and this is the second thing they held in common.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
THX
Fixed kinds = “a fox will always be a fox”. Strict Creationist. Even more strict than those who think a canine “kind” could give rise to foxes, dingos, coyotes and such.
He thought his race was created in “the Highest image of God”.
That was the lame attempt of the author to necklace the theory of evolution with Hitler. By Godwin’s law he loses in the first paragraph. Especially when Hitler believes in fixed kinds: “A fox will always be a fox.”.
There is no context where that isn’t a belief in fixed kinds. There is no context in which Hitler didn’t think his race was “the Highest image of God”.
Doesn’t speak well of Creationism that all they have is historic revisionist guilt by association.
Too bad that by pointing this out I got your goat. A goat that by Hitler’s creationist philosophy will ‘always be a goat’. ;)
In the great advancements of science, of what importance was Darwinism to bringing these advancements about?
Advancements in understanding such as: Circulation of the blood, that nerves carried electrical impulses, atomic theory, development of antibiotics, metallurgy, electricity/magnetism,.....Anyone could add many more, but the point is that Darwinism has been a bust except as a motivation for the space program.
So claims our brother allmendeam.
But I wonder: What could be more "miraculous" than a Universe that did not have a beginning in time and space? How can anything be anything without what the philosophers call a first cause? Even a pure mechanist could appreciate the idea of a first mover to set up the resultant chain reaction of successive causes down the line, a la billiard balls.
In my view, there is no "before" the Beginning; there is no "before" the Big Bang. The singularity may be viewed as instantiating the Logos of Genesis 1. Yet from the scientific standpoint, it is simply pointless to speculate about such things, since the human mind, and all its science, cannot ever go there to see.
I would just like to point out to my dear brother AMD that the Holy Scriptures actually tell us that there was a Beginning, a First Cause, Logos Alpha to Omega.
And that is why we have a "lawful" universe an absolute prerequisite to any kind of rational thinking at all scientific, philosophical, theological, religious. FWIW.
Thanks ever so much for writing dear sister in Christ!
Yes. We all know that doctrine is sacrosanct. It must not be doubted, let alone questioned.
The only problem is, the paleontological record does not lend a whole lot of support to the macroevolutionary aspects of Darwin's theory.
Even Richard Dawkins is aware of the problem of "missing" intermediate fossil forms.
...[T]he Cambrian strata of rocks ... are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertibrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. [Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987.]If Darwin's theory is correct that evolution is a process of gradualism, or as you say, a process of transformations occurring at "a relatively steady rate" then where are the "missing fossils" in the run-up to the Cambrian Explosion, c. 500,000 B.C.?
I do not argue for Lamarck's theory either.
Thanks so much for writing, exDemMom, and for the valuable link!
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.