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.
Love it. Ping me to subsequent editions of your rants.
Well, I do believe that Einstein thought so. And that it was his job to figure out what "the Old Man" (as he called God) did "in the Beginning."
Niels Bohr appears to be fairly agnostic on such questions. He did not sweat them at all. Still, it also appears that he understood that his scientific work involved a disclosure of what already IS....
Both men understood that the picture of the atom as "little balls rolling around other balls" turns out to be completely false. That there's more to the Universe than "matter in its motions."
I can't wait to see your "rant on eternity” dear brother in Christ! Please do be sure to ping me.
Thank you ever so much for writing!
eDM wrote: ‘There is no issue of “refusing to let Darwin’s theory be wrong” here. The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn’t, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.’
And yet after 170 years there’s still not one theory for evolution nor any solid refutations for the pesky facts you evolving ‘scientists’ normally ignore. At least there is a growing chorus of those refuting it [much the same as man-caused global warming].
Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2761001/posts
Pesky facts like:
1) DNA that rewrites itself by millions and billions of lines for each new lifeform [omit for now how the first simple lifeform wrote hundreds of millions of DNA logic],
2) Symbiotic relationship of DNA and RNA needing to complement each other for each unique lifeform,
3) Chirality where only left-handed outcomes are selected,
4) Cambrian explosion,
5) Polystrate fossils,
6) Stasis in the fossil record where lifeforms come and go with zero evidence of any macro-type changes,
7) Over 100 natural clocks indicating much much less than millions let alone billions of years for natural history [see my links page for more],
8) Moon formation and age - esp. since all lifeforms are dependent on the motion of the moon,
9) Zero missing links - far short of the thousands upon thousands Darwin predicted or ‘my theory completely falls apart’,
10) The Law of Biogenesis or life from life.
I’ll stop here but the list of problematic data points is long and completely without any evolutionary explanations. Furthermore the list continues to grow so much so that mathematicians [pure logic not science] now have the highest group percentage of evo deniers.
Remember this please - Darwin saw a blob of tissue when he peered into the 1800’s microscopes yet today scientists can observe more complexity of interactions than what is found on any factory floor.
What, exactly, is the supposed evidence that would definitively prove evolution but doesn't actually exist? If you have that evidence, it is scientifically sound, and your experiments/observations are repeatable by any knowledgeable life scientist, why haven't you published it yet?
The burden of proof is really on you to produce it. On the science side, we have countless thousands of pieces of evidence that support the ToE as the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life that we see today. What evidence do you have?
The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.
I live in the same world, and I do not think like a machine. I think and speak like a scientist, because that is what years of college and work experience have taught me to do. It is true that scientists have their own special language; most professions do.
My sense is you and people like allmendream — myrmidons sent from DU to trouble the Christian citizens who frequent FreeRepublic — have blinders on their eyes and braces on their brains. It seems impossible that they should ever see the "big picture" of Reality in its fullness. Cognitively, they seem to function at the level of machines: They live in a world of two-value logic — a logic which can propound only two possible answers to any question: True or False. Yes or No. 1 or 0.
I'm sorry, but it simply does not follow that because I am not a literal creationist that I am the sort of crazy-eyed lunatic who typically frequents sites like DU. Nor do I think that is true of allmendream. Furthermore, it is my experience that logic and fact are distinctly unwelcome in leftist circles, so the chances of me ever visiting DU are almost non-existent.
I must ask, why is it that you assume that being a scientist is incompatible with Christianity? As far as I can tell, the creation/evolution debate is not driven by scientists; it is driven by literalists who, for some reason, have decided that the entire basis of their faith is invalid if Genesis is not a literal account of the beginning of the universe, the earth, and life. Since scientists first showed hundreds of years ago that creation as portrayed in Genesis is not supported by scientific evidence, I have to wonder, what is the big deal? Why the attacks on biological sciences, when no branch of science supports a literal creationist view?
I would say it's not scientists who are stuck with the "0 or 1" mentality.
But this only tells me that you do not understand what Genesis 1 and 2 actually say. Truth rarely reduces to the "literal." Understanding requires more than that.
To my understanding, Genesis 1 and 2 perfectly match up to my knowledge and direct experience of this world.
So--you are now saying that you do not, in fact, believe that the creation account put forth in Genesis is a literal account of the beginning of life, the universe, and everything? Then why do you resist accepting that scientific concepts and theories are, in fact, based on empirical observation of the world around us?
Spirited: First of all, evolutionism is not empirical science, as even Karl Popper was honest enough to admit: “Imagine There’s No God-—only evolution” http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2787047/posts
And who is Karl Popper? Is he some great biologist, who discovered some seminal concepts of biology that help to shape the study of biological science as we practice it today?
No, according to Wikipedia, he was a philosopher trained in psychology, who worked at an economics school. Why should some non-scientist's philosophical musings hold more weight than the observations of actual scientists?
Evolutionism, whether a spiritual concept such as Teilhard’s or a material concept such as Darwins’ is a metaphysical program purpotedly answering the ultimate question of origins. However, it ultimately implodes into nihilism.
Next, the taproot of Darwin’s concept stretches back to the most ancient evolutionary conception so far translated, that is the Enuma Elish.
Man is fully capable of deceiving himself and deceiving others. And when men do not want the true, living God to exist they inevitably turn to evolutionary conceptions and then mock, scoff, and belittle those who refuse to follow them into their folly.
This, in a nutshell, is why I jump into the creationist threads. I honestly don't care how anti-science you are, as long as your brand of anti-science doesn't kill people. But it is *extremely* annoying that literal creationists have to invent religions that they then claim scientists all adhere to. You have no proof whatsoever that scientists follow whatever your imaginary religion is, whether you call it "evolutionism" or something else, yet you have no compunctions whatsoever about categorizing us as devotees of that religion.
I believe that that practice is an example of bearing false witness. That's breaking one of the ten commandments, isn't it?
If you have concrete evidence that science is, in fact, just another religion, and that performing experiments is no different than worshipping in a church, present that evidence. Don't go around quoting obscure philosophers as "proof" of your claim that scientists are practicing some oddball religion, because it is not. Proof, in this case, would be a survey of a random sample of scientists large enough to be sure the sample is statistically significant.
As long as you're providing proof that we follow your invented religion, how about also providing proof that you know anything about our motives for becoming scientists? Nothing you said indicates that you have any clue about that, either, although that didn't stop you from saying nonsense about it.
I don't care what your motives are, but lying or repeating lies about people you know nothing about is a sin.
Thank you for all your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
Although decidedly not undecided in this matter,this lurker is very appreciative of your efforts here.All of you.
The importance of this issue cannot be overstated.This is big,very big.
1 Corinthians 14:12 "...seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."
I don't know if any of you are aware of this but to this little black duck you folks,over the last decade or more have been a great blessing in that very thing 1 Cor 14:12 talks about.
Also...
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:10,11).......Is ample evidence to me that God meets us where we are....and helps us.Thanks guys!
God bless you
“And who is Karl Popper? Is he some great biologist, who discovered some seminal concepts of biology that help to shape the study of biological science as we practice it today”
Spirited: Considering that what takes place in the unseen dimension, that is the mind, always precedes the spoken and written word and every action-—including yours-—then Karl Popper is important both as a philosopher and as an honest man.
Honesty is in very short supply in certain departments of the so-called ‘scientific’ community, evolutionary biologists in particular.
Like ancient pagans who superstitously studied sheep entrails for signs today’s biologists superstitiously study slime-mold colonies for knowledge about themselves. And just like Greece’s ancient nature philosophers-—the scientists of their time-— who taught that in other lives they had been females, trees, fish and other such nonsense their modern counterparts proclaim themselves to have been worms, fish, and apes in their former lives.
Evolutionists—including you-— confuse their religious cosmogony with real science. Though Karl Popper preferred the evolutionary cosmogony to the special creation cosmogony he was at least honest enough to admit that evolutionism is a cosmogony rather than empirical science.
“Unto the righteous arises light in darkness; He is merciful and full of compassion.” Psalm 112:4
In times of almost over-whelming darkness our merciful Lord sends forth His warriors of light (truth) to contend against and ultimately expose the lies that hold men in bondage.
The lie is the father of contradiction, hypocrisy, betrayal, insincerity, treachery, envy, lust, hate, contempt, and murder. It is the thought, word, deed, and sign of cunning and intended ill will.
Through mocking, belittling, and other tactics of psychological bullying in conjunction with deliberate silence (repressing truth) and the twisting and redefining of words the liar deceives others of the right to know truth.
The greatest lie today is the Big Lie that ‘God does not exist.’ For over one-hundred years this lie has been engulfing whole nations in a holocaust of fire and brimstone-—fear, violence, paranoia, suspicion, terror, revenge, destruction and mass-murder unlike anything ever witnessed prior to the 20th century.
The use of the lie reveals the liar as a person of evil intentions, as one who lacks a love of truth. The liar lacks frankness, honesty and uprightness. He is an untrustworthy self-centered dissimulator who cunningly manipulates others for his own evil purposes. (The Roots of Violence, Vincent P. Micelli, S.J.)
Countering the liars are His truth warriors, those who love truth. Through their long-term labors the philosophies, ideologies, scientism, and false cosmogonies whose secret of success is found in an extraordinary power of synthesis, a reconciliation of contradictions, are analyzed, their contradictions and lies exposed, and then ultimately thrown down, thereby liberating those held in bondage.
We who you have thanked are but a few members of His army of truth warriors and we thank you, as well as all who have ever expressed to us their thanks, for gladdening our hearts by delivering to us His praise.
eDM wrote: ‘What, exactly, is the supposed evidence that would definitively prove evolution but doesn’t actually exist? If you have that evidence, it is scientifically sound, and your experiments/observations are repeatable by any knowledgeable life scientist, why haven’t you published it yet?’
Truthfully neither evolution nor creation can be considered science because you can not go back and repeat history. On a micro/natural adaptation level - yes - proven, confirmed and agreed on by both groups [see last link below].
eDM wrote: ‘The burden of proof is really on you [WHO? Which group claims the science is settled as fact?] to produce it. On the science side, we have countless thousands of pieces of evidence that support the ToE as the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life that we see today.’
Well what evidence do you [or evolution] have exDemMom to prove macro-evolution? Change from one kind into another has never been proven and zero missing links found.
If you have a love of truth no matter where it leads, integrity, and are open minded then maybe you could examine the creation interpretation of the same evidence and see how completely the puzzle pieces fit together in defense of the Bible.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
exDemMom, Karl Popper is notorious for his observation (paraphrased) that the more a theory withstands attempts at falsifying it, the more confident we can be in the theory - and conversely, theories which cannot be falsified are not trustworthy. In today's lingo, we would call such theories "just so" stories.
Herein is the great difference between disciplines.
In the "historical" sciences like archeology, anthropology, Egyptology, evolution biology - the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Theirs are "just so" stories based on spotty evidence in the historical record.
In the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Their theories are subject to empirical tests, observations and falsification attempts (Popper.) Indeed, the more attempts to falsify a theory that are made and fail - the more confident we are in the theory.
However, our greatest confidence stems from the discipline of mathematics (not a science) where the observations are subjected to mathematical "proofs."
And for me, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Wigner) is like God's copyright notice on the Cosmos.
Click here for more recent observations about that unreasonable effectiveness.
In particular, string theorists Hirosi Ooguri and Cumrun Vafa discovered that the number of complex topological structures that are formed when many strings interact is related to the Jones polynomial. Furthermore, the leading string theorist Ed Witten demonstrated that the Jones polynomial affords new insights in one of the most fundamental areas of research in modern physics, known as quantum field theory.
The lesson from this very brief history of knot theory is remarkable. First, it was the active effectiveness of mathematics that came into play. Physicists needed a model for the atom, and when knots appeared to provide the appropriate tool, a mathematical theory of knots took off. When a better mathematical model (in the form of the Bohr atom) was discovered, mathematicians did not abandon knot theory. Driven only by their curiosity, they continued to explore the properties of knots for many decades. The mere possibility of understanding the properties of knots and the principles that govern their classification was seen by most mathematicians as exquisitely beautiful and essentially irresistible. However, then came the surprising passive effectiveness of mathematics. Unexpectedly, the Jones polynomial and knot theory in general turned out to have wide-ranging applications in string theory.
What makes this story even more striking is the following fact. Recall that Thomson started to study knots because he was searching for a theory of atoms, then considered to be the most basic constituents of matter. By a remarkably circular twist of history, knots are now found to provide answers in string theory, our present-day best effort to understand the constituents of matter! So knot theory emerged from an attempt to explain physical reality, then it wandered into the abstract realm of pure mathematics—only to eventually return to its ancestral origin. Isn't this absolutely amazing?
For instance, the geologists who disagreed with the orthodox "just so" consensus story of Egyptology in reference to the age of the Sphinx were treated horribly by them. How dare they dispute the "just so" consensus story?!
Ben Stein's "Expelled" exposed such orthodoxies and how people who questioned the "just so" stories were treated. And in response, Stein himself is held up to ridicule. How dare he question our ethics?!
What childishness in the historical sciences!
If they were "hard" sciences, each attempt to falsify would be embraced as yet another opportunity to increase confidence in the theory.
I have much more confidence in mathematics and physics theories than in any "just so" story from a historical science discipline.
God's Name is I AM.
“What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard,and what no human mind has conceived {are} the things God has prepared for those who love him” -1 Cor 2;9
I could put this on a flag and march around, my bunny hole, like an idiot drunk with new wine.. The concept makes the mind reel with possibilities..
No, according to Wikipedia, he was a philosopher trained in psychology, who worked at an economics school. Why should some non-scientist's philosophical musings hold more weight than the observations of actual scientists?
Well, maybe it's part time to be handing out
If they want to divorce themselves from philosophy, then perhaps they need to give up those degrees they're so proud of and stop owning the label of doctor of philosophy.
part time = past time.
Try this again.....
Well, maybe it's past time to be handing out
If they want to divorce themselves from philosophy, then perhaps they need to give up those degrees they're so proud of and stop owning the label of doctor of philosophy.
I fear I missed you.
Ping to posts 456 and 457.
I know.. beautiful ain't it.. What drama, what acting, what method..... The beauty of all the traps, gambits, false trails and intellectual cul d'sacs.. is amazing to behold.. Science fiction must appear to be real and be logical else whats the point..
Smart alecks have a circuitous path to negotiate.. A virtual war of ideas to dodge and weave in.. Its divine in its origin I believe.. The path humans must travel to survive sane is pure genius.. Human life can easily drive you bonkers.. So many traps..
Traps of givernment, religion, drugs, sex, money, family dysfunction, friendship associations, various forms of vanity, and more.. Its an honor to be associated with a God that thought up this "maze"... Humans are indeed like a rat in a maze..
Jesus was brilliant in the phrase he said to the Apostles.. "You MUST become like "this" little child, OR you will never see "heaven".. Pure genius.. God I think is a genius.. Is God COOL or WHAT?..
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.