Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert

LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/17/12 | Kathleen Gilbert

[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.

[BrandtMichaels]

Zeroth law of thermodynamics aka the law of zero entropy. The zeroth law was the last one defined and was an obvious afterthought, has to do with reaching a theoretical absolute zero ~ never to be attained ~ and thus in the same realm as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Yet there's not any one website that defines it completely and correctly. per wiki... The zero point of any thermodynamic temperature scale, such as Kelvin or Rankine, is set at absolute zero. By international agreement, absolute zero is defined as 0K on the Kelvin scale and as −273.15° on the Celsius scale. This equates to −459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale and 0 R on the Rankine scale. Scientists have achieved temperatures very close to absolute zero, where matter exhibits quantum effects such as superconductivity and superfluidity. per innovateus.net... Thermodynamics can be broken down into 4 laws. They are as follows. Zeroth law of Thermodynamics: Even though the zeroth law is added to the laws of thermodynamics after the 3 laws, it is usually discussed first. The law states, “Two systems each in thermal equilibrium with a third system are in thermal equilibrium to each other”. In other words, if 2 systems are in the same temperature as in the third system, then all 3 are in the same temperatures. First law of thermodynamics: The law states, “The change in the energy of a system is the amount of energy added to the system minus the energy spent doing work”. It means the total energy of a system remains a constant, even if it is converted from one form to another. For instance, the kinetic energy which is the energy that an object possesses when it moves is converted to heat energy when a driver presses the brakes on the car to slow down. There are often many phrases that are catchy to help people remember this law like, “Work is heat, and heat is work”. Basically, work and heat are equal. Second law of thermodynamics: This law states, “It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one”. It is one of the most basic laws in science. If we put this in simple words, it says that heat could not flow to a system at a higher temperature from a system at a lower temperature by its own violation. For such an action, work must be done. If an ice cube is place in a cup of warm water, the ice cube melts as the heat from the water flows into it. The end result would be a cup of water that is slightly cooler. Ice cubes can only form if energy is used. Third law of thermodynamics: This law states that, “It is impossible to reduce any system to absolute zero in a finite series of operations”. This means that a perfectly efficient heat engine cannot be created. The change in entropy (measure of disorder) of a system when it converts from one form to another gets close to 0 as its temperature nears 0 on the Kelvin scale. Zero on the Kelvin scale is absolute lower limit to temperature - when atoms and molecules have the least possible energy. Entropy is defined as the availability of a system’s energy to do work. So, it follows that there is an absolute scale of entropy. As a result, no real system can ever reach 0 degrees on the Kelvin scale.

[BrandtMichaels]

Zeroth law of thermodynamics aka the law of zero entropy.

The zeroth law was the last one defined and was an obvious afterthought, has to do with reaching a theoretical absolute zero ~ never to be attained ~ and thus in the same realm as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Yet there’s not any one website that defines it completely and correctly ~ nor one that won’t mess up my formatting.

[BrandtMichaels]

Very well put Betty Boop!

[BrandtMichaels]

In fact so well put in 358 and 359 that you rendered amd speechless - first time I’ve ever seen that one...

[grey_whiskers]

I always heard of it as the Third Law.

One wag paraphrased the laws of thermo as:

1) You can't win

2) You can't even break even

3) You can't get out of the game (cannot reach absolute zero in a finite number of steps)

Must be a generational thing.

Cheers!

[Alamo-Girl]

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.

And they probably considered themselves brilliant for their choice. Jeepers...

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!

[Alamo-Girl]

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.

So very true. Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm so glad you raised the Cambrian Explosion, dearest sister in Christ!

To your remarks, I'd like to add Dr. Gerald Schroeder's article on Evolution: Rationality v Randomness which includes this comment:

With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At an event recorded in the fossil record and known as the Cambrian explosion of animal life, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly and simultaneously appeared in the fossil record. This is the first appearance of complex animal life. Only 30 to 34 of the phyla survived. The rest perished. Since then the fossil record and modern existing biota reveal that no new phyla have evolved. At a later stage in the flow of life, a catastrophic event (possibly the collision of the earth with a massive comet or meteor) eliminated 90% of all life forms. The ecology was wide open for new phyla to develop. Again, no new phyla appear. The implication is that only a limited number of life forms (phyla) are viable.

It is no wonder that the most widely read science journal, Scientific American, asked "has the mechanism of evolution altered in ways that prevent fundamental changes in body plans of animals" (November 1992). It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed; it is our understanding of how evolution functions that must change to fit the data presented by the fossil record and by the discoveries of molecular biology.

[spirited irish]

And they probably considered themselves brilliant for their choice. Jeepers...

Spirited: No doubt. But of course they are not in control, as they foolishly believe. For neither are our minds (spirits) nor the ideas that occur to our minds things that we can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. They are of the unseen dimension. Thus saith the Lord:

“This wicked people have refused to hear my word....Behold, I will fill them....with madness.” (Jeremiah 13:10, 13

And so——fools (in their madness) say in their hearts, there is no God.

[MrB]

His last statement there, that you quoted, is so obviously “begging the question” that I question his self-claimed sense of intellect.

Oh, and as for “if you assume a supernatural event at ANY point in history, then you can’t do science argument”...

Well, either you have to totally repudiate even the CONCEPT of a Creator, or there was a “supernatural event” at some point. The very fact that you CAN predict using laws of science and universal constants and the assumption of uniformity is proof that this universe was not accidental and had a Creator, ie, a “supernatural event” occurred.

[MrB]

I answered that one in the other reply.

Either “supernatural means” were used at some point,
or there is no Creator, and you have totally undermined the foundation of Christianity, because, to Whom are you accountable if there is no Creator?

So, whether that supernatural even occurred at the supposed “Big Bang”, slightly before, or during the 6 days of creation, followed by “non-interference” afterwards, it matters not in the ability of prediction, discovery, and useful predictions.

I’ve ready about non-Christian cultures and their attempts at science. The basis of modern science assumes orderliness and predictability, which is exactly the Biblical description of the post-Creation universe.

[exDemMom]

I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

Or are those just talking points you found in some “creation science” blog-screed floating around the internet?

P.S. Using various sizes and types of font in different colors doesn’t make a weak, baseless argument into a strong one. In fact, it just highlights the fact that you have nothing substantive to say. Likewise with personal attacks and insults to people’s intelligence.

[grey_whiskers]

A brief comment for now, will enter the fray again later today, wife willing.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that sets scientists apart from other people as far as beliefs, lifestyles, etc., is that we chose science for a career instead of something else, like accounting or firefighting.

Intellectual pride sets them apart as well. The closest thing to an intellectually humble scientist I have ever seen (and surely they broke the mold when they made him) was Richard Feynman.

Cheers!

[Quix]

I edited/rewrote major sections of English journal articles for Taiwan’s top geologist for years.

I’m extensively aware of the process in my field of psychology. So much so that I somewhat rebelled against the process and never bothered with it.

Thankfully, my Dissertation Chairman was even more sharply attuned to such absurd things than I. And he once presented . . . I forget . . . somewhere between 8-11 papers—I think it was 11—at the same American Psychological Association convention. No slouch, for sure.

Yes, I have read well over a thousand peer reviewed journal articles. Possibly over 3,000 . . . probably not more than 5,000. I’ve taught at the university level for more than 30 years.

Your assumptions about my level of awareness of the problem appear to be greatly flawed.

[exDemMom]

'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.

I'm a little curious, when you go to the doctor for a problem, and the doctor proposes a treatment that was first described in the peer-review literature (such as antibiotics for bacterial infection), do you reject that treatment? Would you be more accepting of a treatment you first read about in some free new-age publication you found lying about someplace?

If you need to take your car to a mechanic for repairs, are the certifications hanging on the wall a signal for you to walk out? Do you instead look for someone who has some tools and talks big about being better at car repair than any certified mechanic?

If you need to have your taxes done, does seeing that the accountant is a CPA make you turn around and walk out that door? Do you instead seek out some high school math whiz, because, after all, quality-control mechanisms really are nothing more than gate-keepers meant to keep out people who really know what they're talking about?

BTW, changing the name of the imaginary religion you ascribe to scientists after I deconstructed the other two names of this imaginary religion does not, in fact, establish that scientists have an imaginary religion.

[Quix]

In terms of my posting style re fonts etc . . .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2347476/posts

In terms of the rest of that paragraph, I sometimes reply in the language &/or tone of the poster I’m replying to.

[exDemMom]

"The model that it all happened miraculously is absolutely useless in terms of application and further discovery about the natural world.”

So claims our brother allmendeam.

I tend to agree with allmendream on this. From a working scientific viewpoint, metaphysical considerations really are irrelevant. Many people are familiar with the chemical process of cake baking. First, all the reagents are mixed together. Next, they are subjected to high heat that drives the chemical reactions. This process works equally well for Christians of any denomination, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, atheists, or anyone adhering to any other faith. As a scientist, the recipes I mix usually fit into a space smaller than a drop of water, but are equally unaffected by religious faith or considerations.

As a scientist, I am perfectly happy to let people who feel compelled to consider metaphysical matters do so. I'm fairly certain that whatever experiments I do in my test tubes or on my computer are equally non-relevant to their work.

[grey_whiskers]

Projection by ad hominem placemarker.

First recorded "slow motion" snapback placemarker.

Let's examine your post in more detail.

I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

ad hominem. One can be aware of controversies within a particular field, and the personality conflicts which simmer beneath the surface, contaminating the supposedly pristine peer review process, by reading on various blogs; by reading news stories on scientific fraud; or by listening to friends and co-workers who have been involved in the whole shebang, without any requirement that one has been involved in the process.

The problem is more subtle than you suggest however, on the principle that "he who is closest to a problem has the greatest likelihood to know all about it, but also the greatest temptation to hide his own personal interests in it."

Those who practice science, whose livelihood depends on it, and whose career, professional pride, professional standing, and self-esteem are all wrapped up in it, are likely going to be the ones least likely to own up to cracks in the edifice; least of all to philistines who aren't capable of understanding anyway.

Or are those just talking points you found in some “creation science” blog-screed floating around the internet?

Nice use of the 'heads I win, tails you lose' : when evos here cite arguments lifted straight from atheist talking points, they are allowed to hide behind "SCIENCE": but when people attack the actual practice of science as compared to the PR, they must be derided has having merely copied by rote from creationist sites.

Again, it need not hold, it does not follow.

It is instructive that such an accusation is the first thing you fly to.

If you bother to look, you can find postings by avowed (contradiction in terms) atheists talking about partisanship within science, and politics openly interjecting itself into science -- at the hand of DEM Congresscritters. (No fundies involved.)

P.S. Using various sizes and types of font in different colors doesn’t make a weak, baseless argument into a strong one. In fact, it just highlights the fact that you have nothing substantive to say. Likewise with personal attacks and insults to people’s intelligence.

Actually, using sizes and types of font and color is highly recommended to avoid putting people to sleep, by those who are professionals in corporate marketing and communications.

Once again, Dilbert to the rescue:

Cheers!

[exDemMom]

Intellectual pride sets them apart as well. The closest thing to an intellectually humble scientist I have ever seen (and surely they broke the mold when they made him) was Richard Feynman.

I think that is a matter of perception more than anything else. A scientist is always aware that the conclusions they make on the basis of their research can be overturned or shown to be wrong by someone who approaches the same topic from a different direction. As a result, our language tends to be uncertain--the scientific literature is full of probabilistic language "might, possibly, could, suggests".

It occurs to me that you might have made that judgment based on scientists popularized by the media (like Carl Sagan). If that is the case, then please keep in mind that they no more represent ordinary scientists than Joy Behar of The View represents ordinary women.

[GourmetDan]

"I'm a little curious, when you go to the doctor for a problem..."

"If you need to take your car to a mechanic for repairs.."

"If you need to have your taxes done..."

The fact that the doctor can observe the effect of antibiotics on an infection does not mean that his opinion on the origin of bacteria is accurate. The fact that a mechanic can fix a problem does not mean that cars self-assemble for no reason at all. The fact that an accountant can calculate my tax bill does not mean that government spontaneously appeared out of nothing.

Typical bait-and-switch tactics used by committed philosophical naturalists are so predictable and so laughable that it's difficult to believe that an honest 'scientist' would even use them.

"BTW, changing the name of the imaginary religion you ascribe to scientists after I deconstructed the other two names of this imaginary religion does not, in fact, establish that scientists have an imaginary religion."

My, my you are a legend in your own mind, aren't you.