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.
Any 'sane' person can know just how delusional Hitler was. How did his 'beliefs' work out for him? We the US put a stop to his insane evil plots.
I was born in Germany, my dad was stationed there while serving in the military. I grew up with the 'shame' of Hitler's demonic delusions. My g-grandfather came to this nation from Germany, as a stowaway in the late 1800's and my half German grandfather nicknamed me 'kraut' because I was born in Germany. My birth came well after the two European blood baths of the 20th century. AND my uncle was among those Americans that landed on the shores of Europe on D-Day. He had his skull blown open on one of those beaches. They put a metal plate in his head and then he was sent on to fight against the attempt to reorder this world.
History is filled with people using the Creator as their weapon to 'control', 'kill', and 'enslave' the masses for their own evil purposes.
Darwin was against the Creator and his life's work helped the progressives outlaw His presence from public education. That religion is called the 'scientific methodology', and if the followers of that methodology can get ruled as the only lawful educational doctrine allowed in our public education they can be held to account for the state of educational ignorance found all across this land. AND if that scientific methodology can be use to tell the little children they are animals, so can the same scientific methodology be used to tell the animals they are the cause of this old earth heating up.
Nat Hentoff has commented upon how the language used to degrade the humanity of a fetus, and therefore rationalize killing it, is starkly similar to the languaged used to dehumanize the Jews, Slavs and other peoples the Nazis wanted to exterminate.
Likewise, the Christianity ("Positive Christianity") of Hitler and Nazi Germany was built on that racism and with the goal of a Nazi Church which would eliminate all Judeo/Christian influence in favor of racism.
The word "Christian" as it applies to Hitler must be asterisked with those details. And his statements must be asterisked in the context of Nazi racial philosophies and Nazi dictionaries.
Beyond that, I reject ad hominems, dictionary abuse and therefore strawmen arguments.
I win, you lose, good bye.
“The Creationists of the KKK proposed ‘multiple Adams’ ....”
Spirited: If true then they are guilty of usurping the authority and power of the living, supernatural God and unless they repented there is a hell for them.
Doubtless whatever ‘god’ they may have posited was either a distant, unapproachable, unknowable deity for whom certain select men speak or either a naturalistic god-of-forces, which again, allows certain select men to speak for ‘god.’
Many men have committed unspeakable evils in the name of Christianity. This does not make them true Christians but wolves in sheepskins.
Great post A-G. I think it speaks volumes that a twice-warned certain unnamed somebody would use hitler to show his true animosity for God, Genesis, creation [but mainly young earth creation believers like myself].
Thanks, mom, for the ping.
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?
From your post #51: In my opinion, all too often scientists do, in fact, treat science as dogmatic belief.
No matter how I read that, it still looks like a blanket characterization of scientists as being beholden to "dogmatic beliefs". Therefore, stating so for the purpose of refuting your statement is not "setting up a strawman" as you later said. If that is not what you meant, then you should perhaps revise the statement.
That statement is also why I challenged you on how many scientists you actually know (MDs don't count). It is my belief that someone who actually knows scientists would find it difficult to characterize us in such a manner. Considering that we (scientists) only make up a fraction of the ~1% of the population that holds a doctoral level degree, I think that most people do NOT know a scientist and we therefore make easy targets for any kind of anti-science zealot.
Remember that essay you linked from www.sciencebasedmedicine.org? If you want a good insight into how scientists think, and how we revise what we think as we accumulate evidence, you might spend some time reading various essays at that blog. It illustrates very well how we do NOT treat science like a "dogmatic belief".
Are there no depths to which you will not go in your attempt to vilify creationists and creationism?
If evolution were all that it was cracked up to be, it would stand on its own merits. There would be no need for the near rabid attempts to convince people that evolution is the answer by vilifying creationists and creationism.
If the best you can do to show that you have something to offer is to attack the credibility and integrity of your opponent or opposing idea so that all that is left is YOUR POV, then you have a pretty poor offering.
Have the integrity to sell evolution on its own merits instead of trying to destroy the credibility of your opposition, and someone might listen to you.
People can see through your tactics. They are not fooling anyone.
If Creationism stood on its own merits the author of this illogical argument of guilt by association and appeal to consequences wouldn’t have engaged in revisionist history in the first paragraph.
Neither has there been much of anything other than a personal attack against me for pointing it out.
Certainly not much as far as the actual merits of the argument.
And this particular argument couldn’t make it out of paragraph #1 without a lying historic revisionist guilt by association lie. The author lied.
And the response to me pointing this out has been to attempt to make it about me personally.
I would really appreciate it if you didn’t try to make this about me.
I will pray for you.
Hey Pilgrim, what do you mean by “Creationist”? All followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition are, by definition, Creationists. So are Islamics (though the two religions have little else in common). And, I suspect, there are others, although I have not investigated further.
Clearly, your calumny has been directed primarily at Christians, so before you continue on your path of slanderous attacks, you need to be a little more specific about your disagreement before you indulge in a barrage of slurs calling Christians idiotic, incompetent, Hitlerian, dishonest, and racist.
You profess to be a Christian (At least you have in the past. Has anything changed?) World wide, there are something like two billion Christians. By definition, every one of them is a ‘Creationist.” I don’t know of any Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the universe. Do you?
I’ve pinged a number of colleagues to this thread not because I believe myself or them incapable of standing behind our own words without pinging a dozen or more of the “amen chorus,” as you imagine in your feverish paranoiac fantasies, but to gently point out to them (and to you) that, before we engage in any ‘scientific discussion’ with you, we might do well to insist that you specify precisely what Creationist values give you such offense, and what religious values you feel you must contest based on your understanding of a scientific theory (we are in a religious forum).
Rather than rallying the comfort of an “amen chorus” to my side, if anything, I think that I may have brought a storm of protest down on my head for spoiling the fun.
I know YOU have your own Humpty Dumpty definition.
I too believe as an article of faith that God created humanity and the entire universe. That doesn't make me a creationist unless you wish to render the term nearly meaningless as it applies in “crevo” threads.
What is a “crevo” thread - it is where on Free Republic - arguments in favor of either creationism or evolution are argued. And they are almost never arguing over if God created the Universe - but the timeframe and mechanism.
I accept that God created me “from dust” and that to “dust” I will return. But I also know that I was created via cellular processes involving DNA. Was the creation of Adam more “literal” in the “from dust” or is it possible that he too was created via cellular processes involving DNA?
As to the rest of your post - I said or implied nothing of the sort and I resent the blatant personal attack and the attempt to make this thread about me personally rather than debating the merits of the respective arguments.
Until you acquire a little intellectual honesty. But, don’t worry . . . I’m not a stalker. I haven’t the time to waste on you. Just now and then to remind you, that you’re not getting away with anything.
“I know YOU have your own Humpty Dumpty definition.”
: Creationism noun 1 the belief that the universe and living creatures were created by God in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament.
. . . . . Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003.
Works for me. You think, apparently, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary to have “Humpty Dumpty” definitions. OK. Thanks for that insight.
In the past, I have also offered, as support showing some historical continuity, Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937 and a reproduction of The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary.
Creationism n 1 In philosophy, the doctrine that matter and each new form was created by a direct exercise of the Divine power; opposed to evolution.
. . . . . Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937
The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary doesn’t show the word ‘creationism’ or ‘creationist’ but simply defines the word ‘Creation’ as “The act of creating; the act of causing to exist; and especially, the act of bringing this world into existence (emphasis mine).
Now see if you can remember the philosophical implications of Webster’s 1937 Universal Dictionary’s definition, and how to read a pre-war dictionary.
OK. You’re still a Christian. By definition, you are therefore a Creationist. I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the universe. Do you?
“That doesn't make me a creationist unless you wish to render the term nearly meaningless as it applies in “crevo” threads.”
There is little doubt that an accurate definition of Creationist renders the term nearly useless for your purposes.
Aside from the generic term “Creationist” or “Creationism,” there are any number of ‘special’ terms for Creationist ideas: Young Earth Creationism; Old Earth Creationism; Day-Age Creationism; Gap Creationism; ‘Evolution’ Creationism; Intelligent Design; Modern geocentrism Creationism; Omphalos hypothesis Creationism; Creation science Creationism; Gap Creationism; Progressive Creationism; Neo Creationism; Intelligent Design Creationism; Creation Literalists; Evolution Theist Creationism; Micro-Evolutionary Creationism; Progressive Creationism; Flat Earther Creationism; Hard Core Creationism; Special Creationism (can’t claim this list to be exhaustive).
Any one of them, or others (or a combination), might suit your purpose in describing the philosophy you oppose, but you refuse to follow the norm. You wish to pillory all Christians by attempting to associate them with heinous, traits. When you stigmatize the generic term with your array of vile implications, you are seeking to destroy the norms and conventions of meaning for the purpose of calumny, malicious aspersions, and political domination.
This struggle has nothing to do with the sanctity or the purity of Science. It is quite simply a fight for dominance. You seek control by commanding the lexicon. Every now and then I have to remind you that you control only your side of the argument.
”As to the rest of your post - I said or implied nothing of the sort and I resent the blatant personal attack and the attempt to make this thread about me personally rather than debating the merits of the respective arguments.”
saying something idiotic - #159; because anyone competent enough to perform the experiment would be knowledgeable enough to know you are way out in fantasyland! - #159; Hitler believed in fixed kinds, as is typical of Creationists. - #174; It speaks volumes about the honesty and integrity of Creationists. - #174; Racism and Creationism have been frequent bedfellows. - #172; Hitler believed in fixed kinds and that his race was created in the image of God. - #172
The Mod has warned you (twice).
Now give us your best imitation of a barracks lawyer.
Thank you for your encouragements, dear BrandtMichaels!
Once again - the experiment. Speaking of the experiment - the proposed mechanism was way out in Fantasyland.
Belief in fixed kinds is typical of Creationists, they believe in a “special” creation of fixed kinds rather than common descent of all species. Once again arguing the reality - not making anything personal.
Racism and Creationism are frequent ideological bedfellows - one not need be a “Darwinist” to be a racist - in fact in view of an understanding of human adaptability it is ridiculous - as the poster was saying. Racism existed long before Darwin - and people used arguments based upon creation of fixed kinds. How is that a personal attack?
Seems that in every case you mentioned I was discussing the merits of the argument.
Your post to me was all about what you thought of me.
Other than your same little dance over definitions.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism
Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b
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.