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.
As you pointed out, the secular state controls science education, meaning that just as was the case in the Soviet Union, science “is the only source of knowledge” and the only people capable of “knowing” and/or correctly interpreting “knowledge” are Gnostic adepts occupying positions of power and influence throughout our culture, meaning from Hollywood to academia, the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, etc.
The Soviet Union had almost no use for science, and executed most of its scientists. The Soviets tried to substitute an ideology in the place of biology (Lysenkoism), which was an utter failure that put Russia so far behind in the biological sciences that their research is still hindered by it today. The USSR allowed some physicists to live, but only because they could design the war machinery and weapons needed for the USSR's expansionist goals.
Science and scientists are not to blame for the pogroms and mass starvations that swept the USSR. Put the blame where it belongs, with the socialist sociopaths who were in charge.
Ping
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!
All theories are subject to revision as new knowledge is discovered. That is how science advances.
Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. (from www.dictionary.com)
From the Wiki article, Scientific Theory:
Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:
It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty.
By any of these measures, the Theory of Evolution is valid scientific theory. I've used it many times to make testable hypotheses.
Thank you so much for your insights, dear YHAOS!
They sure do.
Also, I'd like to clear up some confusion over the terms I have been using which evidently have resulted in your claiming a "false dichotomy."
I've been comparing the discipline of historical sciences (e.g. anthropology, Egyptology, archeology and evolution biology) to hard sciences (e.g. physics and chemistry.)
Moreover, I'm focusing on the philosophical divide between them. To the historical sciences, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To the hard sciences, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
The divide is so great, the historical sciences are often seen as inferior to the hard sciences. Physics, for instance, is often seen as far more rigorous and reliable than archeology.
Personally, I value physics far above any other science discipline and mathematics above physics.
That said, the opposite of "hard" science is "soft" science, e.g. psychology, social sciences. Such disciplines are so far removed from either historical or hard sciences, they are not even relevant in this discussion.
In most cases, "soft" sciences do not use a historical record for evidence, e.g. psychology. To whatever extent they do, they would be considered "historical" sciences, e.g. anthropology.
When examining methodology, the opposite of "historical" science is "experimental" science and chief among the "experimental" sciences are the "hard" sciences, e.g. physics and chemistry.
The article I linked for you earlier examines methodological and epistemic differences between historical sciences and experimental sciences.
Biology has a leg in both methodologies; many of its hypotheses are "historical" (e.g. evolution biology and astrobiology) but not all (e.g. molecular biology.)
But to whatever extent a hypothesis presupposes that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is a "just so" story - inferior to my eyes and the eyes of many others.
exDemMom: The Soviet Union had almost no use for science, and executed most of its scientists
Spirited: Wrong. Marxist Communists billed themselves as scientific. Their socialism was scientific materialism, punctuated equilibrium, and natural selection applied to man, the question of evil, the question of who should live and who should die,and how man should live:
” Since Marxist dialectic requires a theory with clashes (thesis and antithesis) and leaps (synthesis), Marxists (had) all but abandoned Darwinism and instead...embraced punctuated equilibrium. “Many people confound dialectic with the theory of evolution,” noted G. Plekhanov. “Dialectic is, in fact, a theory of evolution. But it differs profoundly from the vulgar (Darwinian) theory of evolution.” (Fundamental Problems of Marxism, 1929, p. 145, quoted in The Materialist Faith of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism, L. Kimball, American Thinker, Feb. 2008)
The Black Book of Communism has this to say:
“As master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species, Lenin decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history. From the moment that a decision had been made on a “scientific” basis that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that had been surpassed, its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” p. 752
The authors of The Black Book of Communism concludes that crimes against humanity are the consequence of a scientific-ideology that strips people of their humanity and reduces them to a “particular condition, be it biological, racial, or sociohistorical.” p. 752
The tendency of evolutionary scientistic thinking is to destroy the vision of man as imageo Dei by perceiving him instead as a creature helplessly driven and primarily determined by laws of matter and force, and this was for GK Chesterton a most vile foolishness:
“Something in the evil spirit of our times,” he wrote, “forces people always to pretend to have found some material and mechanical explanation” for their own evil actions and those of others.
Chesterton concluded that the whole host of materialist fallacies derives from the imperialistic arrogation by scientism of the duties, rights, and truths of philosophy.
By virtue of the West’s “sham science” the:
“stupidest or wickedest action is supposed to become reasonable or respectable, not by having found a reason in scientific fact, but merely by having found any sort of excuse in scientific language.” (The Restitution of Man: CS Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, Aeschliman, p.p. 42-43)
“An age of science is necessarily an age of materialism,” declared Hugh Elliot early last century, “Ours is a scientific age, and it may be said with truth that we are all materialists now.” (Darwin Day in America, John G. West, xiv)
Scientific materialism, naturalism and evolutionary conceptions have virtually displaced America’s founding Christian worldview with the result that materialism is now the operative assumption for much of our government, culture, politics, and law.
According to the inner logic of scientific materialism, “we the people” are nothing but socially-constructed atomized robots “helplessly driven and primarily determined by laws of matter and force,” leaving the door wide open to massive evil-doing by America’s “ruling class,” as Angelo Codevilla calls these evil willed parasites in his book, “The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It.” The “faith” of the Ruling Class consists primarily of “science and evolution” and utter contempt for the scientifically dehumanized masses.
So what can we do about the Ruling Class? There really is only one thing we can and must do. That is to utterly reject and loudly denounce scientific materialism and evolutionism on one hand and on the other to turn back to the supernatural Triune Creator and supernatural creation ex nihilo.
Robert Jastrow (b. 1925), recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Studies explains there are only two possible explanations for the origin of life: evolution and creation.
“...science has no...answer to the question of the origin of life on earth. Perhaps (life) is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created...by the will of a being outside...scientific understanding, or it evolved...spontaneously through chemical reactions...in nonliving matter...The first theory...is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith (which assumes) that the scientific view...is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.” (Until the Sun Dies, Jastrow, 1977, pp. 62-63)
Ideas have consequences. Good ideas, such as those on which this nation is founded led to good, not perfection mind you, but overall good. Evil ideas naturally lead to evil. And some of the most evil ideas of all are scientific materialism, naturalism and evolutionary conceptions, all of which say at bottom: There is no God but man.
I think I’ve said that . . . many times, but lately in #512, this thread.
“Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking . . . ”
Really?! You’ve previously informed us (in #512 and #520) that you had never heard of Karl Popper. (“Karl Popper is almost unknown among scientists. I do not recall ever hearing his name before”)
Apparently this thread has made you acquainted with the mysterious and obscure Karl Popper. Further, it would appear that even so eminent and acclaimed a modern scientist as Stephen Hawking knows of the nebulous Mr. Popper (as do most all scientists, if the truth be acknowledged).
Now you’re having a continuing discussion on Mr. Popper with a few other correspondents, so I will leave you to your discussions, following its progress with interest.
In the meantime, the observations you attribute to Mr. Hawking represent a brief summation of two thousand years’ thinking of Western Civilization Philosophy on the subject of the ‘Scientific Method’ upon which hangs the entire future of your chosen career.
In the link to Popper's speech from my post 529, you'll notice that Popper had a lot to say about Marx including this (emphasis mine:)
The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the "coming social revolution") their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified.[2] Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable. They thus gave a "conventionalist twist" to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.
Also in reference to my previous post - in an attempt to illustrate why I see historical sciences as inferior to hard sciences, imagine how a jury would react to the summation arguments in a murder trial if the defense said "there is no evidence that my client committed this crime" and the prosecution responded with "just because there's no evidence doesn't mean he didn't do it (the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)."
Indeed, the judge would have thrown the case out at the beginning rather than waste the court's time.
Oh yes, dearest sister in Christ, I can testify to that! Certain Darwinist correspondents always absolutely refused to see what was patently obvious to others: That their confidence in the success of science in some (possibly remote) future to explain the (so-far) unexplainable IS a "faith statement." Such folks were true believers, accolytes of an ersatz-religion, Darwinism. At bottom, all their claims rested on faith, the principle claim being that there is no-God, either to begin or sustain the natural world in any way, shape, or form.
That is, they constantly propounded the idea that our world and the entire Universe can be exhaustively explained on the basis of naturalistic principles alone. The Supernatural is denied on principle.
Evidently such folks do not even bother to inquire into the authority on which those same naturalistic principles must rest for their own validity. They simply do not ask this question. Which to me simply provides additional evidence that their entire quasi-religious edifice is grounded in pure faith.
Atheism requires the plenitude argument, that anything that can happen, did. They lost the steady state universe model but must have hope in an infinity past in order to consider themselves bright in denying God the Creator.If one's "doctrine" requires one to deny God, then I suppose any substitute will do to fill in the resultant Void. Why not space aliens? Yeah, that's right! LOLOL!
It's a shell game. We are not fooled or amused.
By the way, we see similar goalpost moving in the reaction to the unexplained phenomenum of information content of DNA. Here they appeal to panspermia. In effect, if it cannot be explained by material/efficient cause on earth then appeal to alien seeding for final cause. IOW, they are saying that "aliens are ok in a clinch, but the word "God" is obscene and not to be mentioned in public..."
In the absence of space, things cannot exist.So in effect, evidently to keep the religious at bay the physical cosmologists popularized variations of the multiple universe theories, e.g. this universe was spawned from a previous one which was spawned from a previous one and so on. The theories amount to nothing more than "moving the goalpost" — relegating the issue of the beginning of space and time to some prior universe.In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
Both space and time are required for physical causation.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your extraordinarily illuminating essay/post!
P.S.: Dearest sister in Christ, just one further observation. Here you give a splendid illustration of the problem of Infinite Regression. I understand that, in mathematics, if one obtains an infinite regression as a result, this is usually a sign that there is something dreadfully "wrong" about one's equations....
Aristotle proposed that nothing could be either knowable or meaningful under a universal condition of infinite causal regression. Which is probably why he introduced the idea of a primal First Cause — the Unmoved Mover which causes the Cosmos to exist. He argued that, among other things, reason itself would be impossible absent a first-cause Origin of the Cosmos.
What the Darwinists consistently avoid is the FACT that at some point there HAD TO BE a Creator, even if that Creator did nothing more than "get the ball rolling."
The proponents of the "big bang" theory cannot answer the fact that the particles that eventually combined to form atom DID NOT CREATE THEMSELVES. As you noted with the infinite regression fallacy, these particles could not have emanated from nothing.
Truly, infinite regression of causes are impossible. To visualize why this is so, consider dominoes. A domino falling over was hit a previous domino that fell over and so on. If there were no starting domino which fell (no first cause) then no dominoes would have fallen. But we see fallen dominoes therefore there was a first cause.
And therein lies the secret of the "magician's trick," the "Magic of the Extreme" first demonstrated in the intellectual life of Frederich Nietzsche, as subsequently adumbrated by the great German-American philosopher of history Eric Voegelin, my long-time teacher — the "charm," the "Venus eye that fascinates," the "seductive force that emanates" so as to prevent us from seeing what the "left" and "right" hands [e.g., Good and Evil] are actually doing in the actual world....
Why this stratagem works so well nowadays is completely beyond my comprehension. It seems the only explanation is: Increasingly, the People have lost touch with Truth....
Thank you oh so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your magnificent — and deeply penetrating and luminous — essay/post!
You continue to insist that your quote from Popper was "an accurate assessment" in the face a at least a few people who, so far, are on record as rejecting your assessment, I gather on logical and evidentiary grounds.... No matter. Let the games begin.
You wrote:
...this particular Popper quote is to introduce by inferrence the notion that the Theory of Evolution is untested and untestable, without actually having to present evidence to support that notion (because such evidence does not exist).If this is what Popper is saying, then it seems to me he's not telling us anything we don't already know: To wit: The Theory of Evolution (as an indisputably, thorough-goingly historical science) is completely untestable by means of Bacon's Scientific Method.
You seize onto the idea of "false dichotomies," but I don't really see you demonstrate any.
You say that "no evidence exists" that can disprove Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Well, since I have found plenty of disconfirming evidence by now, how are we ever to get "on the same page" again, so as to have a rational discourse about the facts of such matters?
Arrrgghhhhh! I pray for truthful communication and understanding with/among my fellow human beings at all times.
So, where do you and I, dear exDemMom, go from here?
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.