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.
The theory of evolution covers a very broad spectrum, acknowledgement that some of Darwin's observations were valid is a far cry from a declaration that man descended from non-human life.
I think what we may be seeing here is a fairly successful hijacking of the subject of this thread.
Again demonstrating a lack of understanding of that which you argue against so vehemently.
“I don’t know nuthin’ ‘bout it but I’m agin it!”
Apparently you are unable to provide a reasonable non-contradictory explanation for what you believe.
What mechanism do you use to explain it?
Don't think one is necessary?
Creationists don't understand much about evolution - other than they are “agin it!”, but when called upon specifics they either clam up like cowards or admit to accepting ‘some part’ of evolutionary theory.
So which parts do YOU accept?
amd: They accept evolution when they need to explain how we got all modern terrestrial species from those few that could fit on a boat
Spirited: Christians accept ‘microevolution,’ that is, changes within kinds. What they reject as absolute nonsense is macroevolution, the idea that one kind, i.e., dinosaurs can change into another kind, i.e., humming birds.
Underlying this nonsense is the Big Lie: Man can change into God.
Informed Christians do not confuse the former for the latter as do superstitious evolutionists.
Wow is THAT delusional.
How are DNA changes - which will change what amino acids are in what proteins - or where and when those proteins are expressed - going to change man (or anything else) into God?
So you accept evolution, as long as I call it “micro”, and the (semi) common descent of species, as long as it is within a “kind”. And as I stated previously, Creationists apparently accept evolution at a rate and power MANY TIMES that observed by evolutionary biology!
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.
Hogwash! They also drank water, inhaled air for oxygen, exhaled CO2, and probably occasionally walked on two feet.
Evangelical retards are going to be the death of this country.
Apologies for what, exactly? You linked a story about a physician who clearly was not trained in research methodology. Most physicians aren't. The fact that it turned out he had the right idea tells us nothing of the process that led to it. He may have been a crackpot who just happened on a correct idea (in which case, he bears much resemblance to the proverbial stopped clock), or he may have made some sound observations, but was unable to follow through on them because he lacked training in research methodology. In no way does his story validate the many quacks who, throughout history, have promised that they have the cure, then relay accounts of how the "mainstream" tries to silence them, because they know that portraying themselves as victims of persecution almost guarantees that at least a few people will give them money.
When I pointed out long ago that the majority of Christians throughout history were Catholic you asked how I KNEW they were actually Christians!
Couldn't see that one coming.
It happens so often... Someone makes a spurious accusation about something they claim I believe and then when they can't cough up any proof for it anywhere when asked for it, they resort to the same *well say it now* tactic.
That is so lame.
You know what? No. I'm not going to answer that question because you claimed that I said it or thought it somewhere. It's up to you to provide the evidence for your claims about what I believe and not after the fact or going fishing looking for it.
What a fail.....
Apologies for what, exactly?You could start with an apology for misrepresenting what I said. Then, after you have established your own integrity and humility we can move towards the rest of it. But let's start there, right?
In crevo debate (which is not the object of this thread) - strawmen are common. Often, when the "evo" side doesn't have an argument, it raises a new issue and argues against it. It's a sign of weakness.
Evidently, controlling the dictionary is part of building a strawman. For instance, the "evo" side uses the term "Creationist" instead of the term "Young Earth Creationist" but makes its arguments against YEC instead of the many other Creationist beliefs, e.g. OEC.
Bottom line, anyone who believes in the Creator is a Creationist.
We need a "Godwin's Law" for crevo strawmen, i.e. when it happens declare a win and walk away.
“This thread was about Darwinism, not evolution”
Spirited: Misconceptions abound regarding the meaning of evolution. At one time it simply meant progressive development from moment of inspiration to finished painting, for instance.
In much the same way as homosexuals have appropriated the word “gay” to disguise reality, scientistic materialism has appropriated the word evolution to cover-up its’ parentage from metempsychosis and/or reincarnation.
Whereas metempsychosis/reincarnation mean movement of spirit over time in many different bodies scientistic evolution means movement of life over time in many different bodies. When the former conception speaks of different bodies it means any kind from human to bird to fish to insect. The latter means the same thing: from primordial pond scum to seaweed to reptile to fish to bird to ape to human.
The Christian Truth which has been undermined and displaced by scientistic evolution developed as biology, psychology, ideology, political correctness, philosophy, and natural religion was no mere philosophical truth but the Truth of Life and salvation.
And once there began to:
“gain ground, among the multitudes who have been nourished by that Truth, the conviction that it is no longer credible, the result will be...a spiritual catastrophe of enormous dimensions.” (Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age, Eugene Rose, pp. 44-45)
The climate of naturalist scientism established by eighteenth-century rationalists was extended by nineteenth-century positivists and evangelists of the idea of collective progress (monism), giving birth to the first natural religion of science: scientific socialism and/or Marxist Communism.
Fyodor Dostoevsky had a bitter foretaste of the demonically malignant effects of scientific socialism, “a spiritual catastrophe of enormous dimensions.” This evil religion, said Dostoevsky:
“....is that terrible scourge of mankind, a scourge worse than plague, famine and war, an evil that didn’t exist until this century... one that has its own priests and slaves; a tyrant that is worshipped with unprecedented awe and adulation before which science itself fawns and cringes.” (The Restitution of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, Michael D. Aeschliman, p. 37)
Toward the close of the nineteenth century thinkers like Nietzsche foresaw the spiritual catastrophe that would eventuate in the genocidal “nightmare of destruction in which America and other nations participated” from WWI through WWII.
The first phase of the spiritual catastrophe has passed. We are now moving into the second phase marked by the progressive development of a ‘new’ universal religion, a fusion of Teilhard’s spiritual evolutionary conception, post-transcendent (naturalistic) Christianized monism and socialism.
I really shouldn’t be so hard on you,
considering I was in your position but 4-5 years ago
before I started actually studying the “other” side with an open mind.
Me, 5 yrs ago:
“They can’t ACTUALLY believe that the earth is not billions of years old! The ‘science’ is conclusive that it is!”
“They can’t ACTUALLY believe that all the life we observe didn’t evolve, the ‘science’ is settled!” [like global warming]
One thing you must understand is that “Creationists”
have been through the same education/indoctrination you’ve been
through in “public education”, but they’ve gone BEYOND
that “education” to study what isn’t allowed to be presented
in schools. Consider this especially with the creation scientists with their PhDs in various disciplines including archeology, astrophysics, geology, archeology, etc. They went through the same Darwinist schools that the hardcore evos did - then they studied beyond that which was presented.
You state that there is a “contradiction” between accepting what you insist on calling “evolution” when it comes to change and adaptation within boundaries, and the cross boundary goo-to-you “evolution”. Can you see the difference, or are your base assumptions too engrained to get past?
“Creationists” wouldn’t get so “hung up” on the term “evolution” if it wasn’t consistently used to conflate both “observed change in organisms” and the extrapolation into “this must mean that all life as we see it came from a single common ancestor”.
That’s why we separate the terms into “adaptation” for the former, and “evolution” for the latter, in order to provide more precise, non-conflated definitions. The conflation is ubiquitous, so we’ll continue to provide the more precise, separate definitions. Get used to it. Get over it.
The “Creationist” observation of change in organisms is the same observation of the change in organisms of Darwinists, without the necessary extrapolation into “goo-to-you” which has the problem of abiogenesis of lifeless chemicals to some sort of reproducting lifeform as a starting point.
I will explain this ONCE, so that you have no further excuse to beat the hell out of a strawman you erect to represent your opposites’ position.
The “mechanism” description, which you cling to as your grasp on some superior understanding over us benighted “creationists”, is the SAME “mechanism” for adaptation to environmental pressures. The difference is in the source of the information necessary for this adaptive ability. The source is in the DNA of the original created creatureS, plural. That’s the key - it was CREATED IN the original creatures, not added to.
There is not a SINGLE common ancestor, which is the extrapolation inherent in Darwinism. Mutation is not the source of new information. The wonder of the DNA of creatures is the ability to REPAIR mutations, which would be a detriment to “evolving” if that were the source of new information necessary to adapt to environmental pressures. And observed creatures in which this repair mechanism is suppressed or non-functional meet an ugly end, not an advancement.
Evos have to assume that this information is ADDED through mutation in order to give the open-ended ability to change from molecules-to-man.
Creation scientists observe the same changes in organisms, which is better explained by assuming that the information necessary to produce, for example, a wolf, fox, coyote, dachshund, and mastiff, were all in the original created “dog”.
Now, that’s a 10,000 ft view, where we have a common observation of the adaptation of creatures to environments, but a different assumption as to where the information required for this adaptation comes from.
If you seek further understanding, go read the material from various PhD holding creation scientists who give substantial evidence for their conclusions. However, you may prefer to ignore this, and continue to argue from ignorance of the ACTUAL creationist viewpoint, if it makes you feel superior to do so.
I feel this to be an adequate overall explanation of the differences of viewpoint, so any further “strawmanning” on your part will be taken to be simple dishonesty.
Nice.....
Ping to Mr. B’s excellent post.
Some people prefer to assume that the fact that the 'mechanism' exists means that the 'mechanism' evolved. It's a simple 'begs the question' logical fallacy but one to which the 'evolved' mind is blind.
Thanks for the kudos and the broadcast.
I was most of the way through it before I thought maybe more people would want to comment on it, and you were the first/only person that came to mind.
bump
You believe dogs wolves coyotes dingos etc all came from the same created “kind” - that is common descent of species, at least within a kind; once again you don't get to change the meaning of words.
So you admit you believe in evolution AND the (semi) common descent of species. And at a power and speed FAR BEYOND that observed by evolutionary biology.
That is not a strawman - it is 100% accurate.
Now what is funny is your “mechanism” - no WONDER you think evolution and the semi-common descent of species can happen so rapidly - you think all the DNA variations that ended up in a wolf, a coyote, a dog etc were ALL in the original dog “kind”.
That must have been a very magical animal with very magical DNA - because it certainly wasn't anything NORMAL. A NORMAL animal has only two variations at any genetic loci - if you bottleneck your population to TWO reproducing individuals - you have limited yourself to a MAXIMUM of FOUR useful variations. There are, OBVIOUSLY, far more than just FOUR useful variations of a gene in common between wolves, coyotes, dingos and dogs.
Where did these useful variations, far in excess of FOUR, in humans and animals, come from? Magical DNA again?
Amusing also that with one breath a Creationist will say ‘of COURSE I accept MICRO-evolution’ and then go on to say something idiotic like that all mutations will ‘subtract information’. Hard to explain MICRO evolution via a mechanism where every change leads to less information and less fitness.
So no, my formulation is 100% correct - all I needed was you to “explain” the contradiction. And you did a great job! That you don't see how much your view conflicts with reality is another point of great amusement to me!
Evolution and the (semi) common descent of species at MANY TIMES the rate and power proposed by evolutionary biology - yet you claim to not accept it and be “agin it!”.
But what you are really “agin” is the very notion of even “mico” adaptability through mutation generated variation. That is a rather tough row to hoe as such adaptability is well characterized and well understood and DOES NOT come from DNA variations that pre-existed in the population.
But you at least have a hypothesis that you or any other creationist could FOLLOW UP ON SCIENTIFICALLY - to find out if your mechanism has any basis in reality at all - but I am sure that such work is the furthest thing from Creationists minds because anyone competent enough to perform the experiment would be knowledgeable enough to know you are way out in fantasyland!
Can you not see that one mechanism is mutationally derived variations subject to selective pressure and the “mechanism” you proposed is the selection between myriad variations that somehow preexist within the genome of the species in question?
How can you claim with a straight face that is the SAME mechanism?
Do you not understand that they are completely different mechanisms?
Do you not know that one mechanism is well characterized and well understood while the mechanism you propose is pure conjecture as well as a near physical impossibility?
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.