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.
What I notice is the total avoidance of whether Popper’s ‘musings’ were right or wrong. Shouldn’t that be the true focus of a ‘scientist’?
Rather than worrying about whether these particular Sneetches have ‘stars on thars’? Perhaps it really is true that “you can’t teach a Sneetch”.
No, you can't go back in time to observe history, but there is enough evidence in the fossil record to piece together how evolution has proceeded throughout the last few billions of year.
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.
Seriously, I find ridiculous the creationist claims that a lightning-fast process of microevolution is in effect, but the gradual process of macroevolution cannot possibly occur. If, in fact, rapid microevolution occurred, humans should have seen massive speciation occurring after the biblical floods that presumably wiped out all life (plant and animal) on earth, except for the few organisms that Noah could cram aboard his boat (along with enough food and bedding to last several months). That kind of speciation within the last 4-5 thousand years would have been recorded in written history. It's not. The literal creationist concept of rapid microevolution is supported neither by science nor by the Bible.
I should also point out that the idea of "missing links" is a red herring. Since we cannot produce from the fossil record an example of every generation of any species to show its evolution over time, literal creationists will always bring up that claim of "missing links".
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.
Well, I have to say that this is the first time I've ever seen this supposed demarkation made between "historical" sciences and "hard" sciences. Biology most certainly is a real-time science, and I'm fairly certain that most people would consider my specialty, biochemistry, as a hard science. The study of evolution and evolutionary relationships is as subject to empirical tests, observation, and falsification as any physics experimentation. Evolutionary biologists simply cannot escape the absolute requirement to formulate hypotheses and their companion null hypotheses. And there is a strong mathematical component to the biological sciences.
In any case, I don't jump into literal creation threads to debate the science; literal creationists do not, as far as I can tell, care about the science, and will always come up with another unscientific objection no matter how much evidence is presented, making discussing the science nearly impossible.
I jump in because I don't like to see people defaming and denigrating scientists for having chosen science as a career. As far as the anti-science is concerned, I really don't care; literal creationism doesn't kill people like some other forms of anti-science, and it's unlikely that literal creationists will ever be making policy decisions about the funding of scientific inquiry. Just stay away from demonizing scientists for being scientists.
You might want to look up what a Ph.D. is, and what the word philosophy means.
While the word “philosophy” can mean the study of existentialist nonsense, and it is possible to get a Ph.D. in that field, the word has other meanings. Literally, it means “love of knowledge”, from “philo”=”loving” and “sophia”=”knowledge” or “wisdom”.
A Ph.D. is a degree awarded for demonstrating an ability to conduct high-quality research in a field. It is most certainly an appropriate degree to award to scientists.
I didn't do that because I have observed many times that quotes are often taken out of context where using them to support the literal creationist view is concerned. Since I didn't want to spend the time tracking down the writings of Popper to see what he really said, in context, I did not address the validity of the quotes as presented here.
It is a common gambit of advocates of literal creationism to cherry-pick quotes that supposedly support their position, and then present the quotes as if they come from someone who is so important to science that every scientist must be intimately familiar with every aspect of their work. Until this thread, I had never heard of Popper. He isn't discussed in the history that we learn in freshman level science classes.
Wow. Looks like the indoctrination was quite complete.
As far as I know, none of us are anti-science. And to whatever extent we are anti-scientIST, we direct our indignation towards individual scientists who have been promoting their own political or ideological agenda under the color of science. Chief among these are the Eugenicists (the topic of this thread) and such "scientists" as Dawkins, Pinker, Singer and Lewontin.
In my view, mainstream scientists ought to be just as indignant about such abuses as we are. Science should be about gaining knowledge not political/ideological power.
Also, any person who believes in The Creator of "all that there is" is a Creationist - as YHAOS has tried to explain. Within that belief there are many different understandings of God's revelations both in Scripture and in nature.
There are fewer than 40 sentences in Genesis 1 versus myriad research material in libraries around the world concerning the physical world around us. We Creationists have many ways of viewing the one in the light of the other.
We are not all "Young Earth Creationists."
I for instance consider myself both YEC and OEC. There may be not a single other Christian on this forum who agrees with me. And that does not matter.
My views are much closer to those of Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder though obviously I would not agree with him on everything. He is Jewish, I am Christian.
Nevertheless, like Dr. Schroeder, I keep Relativity and Inflationary Theory in mind while reading Genesis.
For instance, here we are rocketing through space at over 500,000 miles per hour and yet we cannot sense it. Neither can we sense relativistic time - that a week from our present space/time coordinates is equal to an equivalent 15 billion years from the inception space/time coordinates. Nor can we sense the proportion of cosmos to quantum.
In our view, there is no conflict whatsoever between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 - or between Scripture and the physical evidence we see in nature.
Further, I perceive Genesis describing the creation of both spiritual and physical, heaven and earth - from God's perspective not man's. The Creator was the only observer of Creation.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. - Revelation 2:7
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. - Hebrews 11:3
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. – 2 Peter 3:8
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17
But it doesn't matter to me at all if no one here agrees with my understanding of the matter. Even so, I am a Creationist. And I am not anti-science.
God's Name is I AM.
Yeah, right......
My views are much closer to those of Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder though obviously I would not agree with him on everything. He is Jewish, I am Christian.
Nevertheless, like Dr. Schroeder, I keep Relativity and Inflationary Theory in mind while reading Genesis.
Imagine that, a creationist who understands relativity. Sounds like my family with two girls who are physics majors.
But it doesn't matter to me at all if no one here agrees with my understanding of the matter. Even so, I am a Creationist. And I am not anti-science.
Ditto.....
The label of *anti-science* is just a pejorative used to discredit one's opponents. I see tactics like that as indicating the person lobbing the accusation has nothing of substance in his (or her) arsenal.
Just as when Godwin can be invoked, chalk it up as a win.
I'm thinking that you are using a definition of 'empirical' that allows plenty of room for imposing philosophical beliefs on the results.
As opposed to "depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine."
Those who control the meaning of terms, control the debate.
[ I for instance consider myself both Y{oung}EC and O[ld}EC. There may be not a single other Christian on this forum who agrees with me. And that does not matter. ]
Interesting insight.. whos to know.. which..
The earth could be billions of years old with life in the millions.. and mankind in the thousands..
-OR-
The whole shooting match could be in the thousands..
-OR-
Humans could have been around for millions..
I ask myself WHY does it really matter?..
What good does it do me to know either..
Except as entertainment.. or bragging rights to appear smarter..
BUT I could get my livelihood from being some sort of “expert” on one of the options..
The reasons for “believing” one or the other of these (and more) options.. could be endless..
I have to agree with you.. both are possible.. maybe even probable...
I would like to believe humans are the result of God giving the EVIL ANGELS a second chance.. giving the prodigal son metaphorical story new life.. Making us all evil SOB’s.. with some choosing to NOT REBEL against God “this time”..
Otherwise why did God make humans in the first place?..
Adding “Satan” to the pot was pure genius..
When I look at humans there are indeed some evil SOB’s out there..
I could go on but why bore everbody?...
And yes, I shall chalk it up as a "win."
Thank you for your encouragements!
Thank you so very much for sharing your musings and insights!
Please note: There is a dearth of evidence to support the theory of a common ancestor. Yet Darwinists continue to promote the idea of a common ancestor: They want there to be a common ancestor; for it obviates the need for a creator God.
There was nothing "gradual" about the Cambrian explosion. And predecessor transitional life forms are simply absent from the fossil record.
Macroevolution is perhaps the greatest Myth of our age....
God bless you, dear mitch5501! Thank you for your kind words of encouragement.
Which is why Stephen J. Gould came up with his theory of 'punctuated equilibrium', not only for the Cambrian 'explosion' but for all of macro-evolution.
You remember punk-eek, right? The theory that 'predicted' that the evidence wouldn't exist to explain why the evidence doesn't exist?
Prolly satisfies the 'empirical' definition that some scientists like to use...
Empirical means based on observation. Learning to make empirical observations is part of that scientific "indoctrination" that all scientists must learn as part of the process of becoming scientists. There is no room for the imposition of philosophical beliefs onto the results of one's research.
Either my PCR experiment shows that a particular gene is expressed, or it doesn't. Where is the philosophical belief in that?
Thank you, Alamo-Girl for the ping and for expressing your endorsement of at least some of my views.
It’s true, I think, that in attempting to fold 14 Billion years (or 7 Billion years, or 3.5 Billion years, or whatever it may be) into ten thousand years (or six thousand years), those Christians who have chosen to identify themselves with a YEC scientific explanation of God’s creation, have selected a very steep and high mountain to surmount, but I wish them every success for I understand that their theories about the duration of God’s creation is secondary to the knowledge of the salvation of Christ and of God’s love (and that He is The Creator), these being understandings we all share, and it may be that Alamo-girl’s forays into Relativity and Inflationary Theory might serve as their answer. As always in science, theories are subject to further discovery (or so I am told).
And exDemMom, please forgive me for disagreeing, but in your schooling of metmom on the meaning of Philosophy, I believe you commit a fundamental error in equating the gathering of information (the primary task of Science) with wisdom. Wisdom is so very much more than that.
I used to wonder that after I heard someone ask the same question.Then I thought what if I'm adopted and my biological father was the owner of Microsoft or some such.I reckon I'd be pretty keen to find out then!
As it happens,my heavenly Father happens to own the entire universe and He said I will "inherit all things".
"I could put this on a flag and march around, my bunny hole, like an idiot drunk with new wine.."
LOL! Myself I like to go outside at night and drink in the view of the cosmos while rubbing my hands together maniacally muttering..."and it's all mine...aaaaallll mine!"
"The concept makes the mind reel with possibilities.."
Aint that the truth! It's enough to give us an inkling of how Belshazzar must have felt...."Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another"...except obviously in a good way.
Even the beloved disciple,the same one that leant on Jesus breast at the last supper,didn't fare too well when he saw Jesus as He really is!..."And I turned to see the voice that spake with me....And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead"
I suppose that if we could comprehend much more than we do,our heads might explode.At the very least we would be running around as though our hair was on fire.Which,incidently,I expect quite a few of us might well be doing soon should these times turn out to be 'the' time!
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.