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.
That wasn’t an answer to the question.
It was a red herring.
Sure it was an answer. I believe in the Bible. You asked me why I didn’t believe in the Bible and that is the red herring because I DO believe in the Bible.
I, like the Pope and millions of other Christians - simply don’t believe the Bible says the Earth is only a few thousand years old OR that God creating everything means he necessarily did so via miraculous means rather than through the mechanics of the natural laws HE brought into being.
Do you think the Pope is a Christian?
You never answered the question.
A few problems with that line of reasoning.
First is that I really don't care what the pope thinks about the ToE.
Second, and more importantly, your continual claim of that implies that the pope thinks as YOU do about the ToE and agrees with you on the topic. I highly doubt that unless you can provide some cites and links to statements by the popes showing such.
Now, appealing to authority has always been scorned and dissed by evos when creationists do it and yet, here you are appealing to authority as if by doing so, just because the pope believes something, I am obligated to as well.
In a word, No, I'm not.
With the complicating little factor that when it comes to defining scientific terms, evos claim the *right* to to that because the terms define them and they are the scientists and therefore have the right to do so.
By that reasoning, then evos can make no claim on defining *creationist* as that would them be the responsibility of the creationists to define the term and set the parameters for its use in discussion, just as evos/*scientists* do with *scientific terms*
It is the height of hypocrisy to demand the right to define terms for your self and deny the right of others to define the terms that describe themselves.
Therefore, evos have NO right to try to define the term *creationist*, any more than they let creationists define the terms *scientist*.
All it has come down to is that evos have demanded the right to control the vocabulary and insist on everyone playing by their rules. It is intellectually dishonest to hold people to two sets of standards, forcing them into a heads I win, tails you lose situation.
I am making the argument that if you say ‘accepting evolution means one doesn't believe the Bible’ you are saying the Pope doesn't believe the Bible.
That is reducing your argument to the absurd, not making an appeal to authority.
As I have previously stated - Creationists seem incapable of making an argument about a scientific theory without arguing against atheism and/or condemning those who don't believe the same as they do to Hell.
So far the myriad personal attacks against me have focused on attacking my religious beliefs, saying I only claim to be a Christian, saying that I don't believe the Bible, and that for accepting evolution I prefer nothingness to submission to the Lord and Hell awaits me.
Do you think the Pope is a Christian?
Why are you so afraid to answer?
Does it feel ridiculous to claim the Pope isn't REALLY a Christian? It should.
No, it wasn't. I asked nothing about the pope, which is what you responded with.
What I asked was this. I want to know YOUR answer.
If you are a Christian, then why don't you believe the Bible that God wrote?
So, if you believe the Bible, why don't you agree with it that God created man and animals as different kinds? He clearly says that He created mankind and animals in separate acts of creation from the dust of the earth. He said nothing about using other kinds of animals or a different method as He did when He created Eve.
FOTFLOL!!!!!
I doubt there's a person on the board that believes that.
In a word, No, I'm not.
********************************
Why would you be? It's illogical. Might someone who is not Catholic find what a Pope says to be illuminating, to be a convincing argument? I don't see why not, but there is certainly no obligation. But again, this discussion is continuing its divergence from the original subject.
By making the argument that nobody can both accept evolution and believe the Bible you are discounting the millions of Christians who do exactly that - including the Pope.
The Bible tells me that I too am made “from dust” and “to dust” I will return. But I was also made via cellular processes involving DNA. Was the creation of Adam “from dust” more literal than my own creation “from dust”?
Unless I’m mistaken, unless the pope is speaking ex cathedra, even Catholics are not obligated to agree with the pope.
Do you think the Pope is a Christian?
You never did answer the question.
***************************
With all due respect, that's not the issue here. The issue is Darwinism, and how it has been an evil influence on our culture.
All any pope has ever said about evolution is that CERTAIN ASPECTS of it may be valid. It is without question that animals adapt to their native climates, it is necessary for them to avoid extinction. However, no pope has EVER suggested that humans "evolved" from any other animal. After all, why would they, all evolutionists can point to is some totally unidentifiable "missing link." Logic would dictate that if this "missing link" actually existed that archeologists would have stumbled upon it by now.
Thank you, wagglebee.
I KNOW I’m on the Religion Forum side of FR when a “missing link” comment is made and no one posts a picture of Helen Thomas...;)
Thanks goodness for small favors......
Why should I when you never did?
The argument is over your misanthropic abuse of the term “Creationist.”
“those that inhabit “Crevo” threads know exactly what is meant by “Creationist”
Those who inhabit these threads certainly know what you mean by Creationism. It’s up to them (you know, the free will thing) if they are willing to accept your scandal mongering calumnies as definitive, but I do not. You apparently care only for how you can transmogrify a definition into a slanderous idiom to fit your purposes, and care not a whit if, in the process, you destroy the norms and conventions of definition and communication. Then you pitch a snit when challenged on your transgressions, and you duck, you evade, when pressed for specifics. That’s not a defensible attitude for neither a Christian or a Materialist.
When prodded sufficiently, you’ve provided, finally, a rather routine definition of 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”
but you’ve proven unwilling, or unable, to answer the questions: “philosophically, what’s wrong with this definition? Scientifically, what’s wrong with this definition?” Rather fundamental stuff here. What’s the matter? Can’t deal with it?
“Supposing that supernatural means cause physical phenomena leads to no further discovery and to zero useful innovation because such means are not understandable predictable or replicable.
The essence of Materialist apologetics. “useful innovations” Do you propose all knowledge proceeds from a science test book? from a field study report? from a lab experiment?
What of “all men are created equal”? Is that a “useful innovation”? From what experiment, or field study, or science text book did that come? What Materialist doctrine impelled the revolutionary generation to take up arms against a tyrant and assert their freedom?
What of Liberty? From what science test book did that concept spring? Similarly, what of the freedom of conscience? What of the freedom of inquiry? Without Judeo-Christian Creationism, the concept that has unfettered Science would not even exist.
“Science is of use, while Creationism is useless”
Really? Science knows how to abort an unborn child. It takes Creationism (at least as practiced by the Judeo-Christian tradition . . . I don’t know about the Moslem tradition) to teach us that killing unborn children is generally, if not categorically, wrong.
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.