Skip to comments.Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert
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 shouldnt 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 Lenins desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwins 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 thats ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution, said Owen.
Um uh I think maybe...
some well-connected catholic out there needs to ping the Pope to this here thread see.
Please someone settle this and please
Ping the Pope.
Maybe Mr. Thompson is well-connected enough to get the Pope signed up here as our newest FReeper!
Ping the Pope already please somebody!
Also if we do get the Pope on FR we need to ask if he’s really a Christian and then how much the Pope shares in common with Hitler. That will clear things up right?!
YHAOS: Really? Science knows how to abort an unborn child. It takes Creationism (at least as practiced by the Judeo-Christian tradition . . . I dont know about the Moslem tradition) to teach us that killing unborn children is generally, if not categorically, wrong.
Who would I rather have as a neighbor? Mengele or the Amish?
Now are you referring to the real Amish,
or the FReeper “Amish”?
Science is of use, while Creationism is useless
He keeps hammering this as a mantra, probably to convince himself more than anything.
For one, it sets up a false dichotomy between “science” and Creationism. Creationists use science to observe and confirm creation theories.
Also, “of use”, means the ability to predict.
How is it any more “of use” to predict that species generationally adapt to environmental pressures by mutation
than it is “of use” to predict that species generationally adapt to environmental pressures by genetic information inherent in the species?
Either one would be better than Mengele.
Give me a *useless* creationist who shows the love of Christ to a hurting world around them, over a *useful* scientist who only reduces life and people to data and technology.
I’d rather have the human creationist than the inhuman scientist.
Thanks, YHAOS, for pointing out the problem with what is *useful* by some people’s definition.
amd is like a broken record repeating the same mantra over and over and over...
It was just over a month ago where I replied to his [latest - on my radar anyways] useful prediction mantra.
Is Scientific Misconduct on the Rise?
Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:51:38 PM · 33 of 33
BrandtMichaels to allmendream
Here are the hydroplate predictions since my links did not
work in post #30 [faq119].
All the predictions of the hydroplate theory are summarized below. Confirmed predictions are 2, 4, 27, 36, & 48 [so far] while the last, 50, is a missed prediction the other 44 remain for future research. Page numbers, where more information can be found, are in parentheses.
1. many fossilized whales in western Chile (49)
2. pooled water under mountains (127)
3. salty water in very deep granite cracks (128)
4. deep channels under Bosporus and Gibraltar (130)
5. fracture zones mark high magnetic intensity (138)
6. magnetic strength grows at hydrothermal vents (138)
7. earthquakes will be predicted (154)
8. Earth is shrinking (157)
9. granite layer deep under Pacific floor (163)
10. shallow-water fossils in and near trenches (163)
11. inner cores spin is decelerating (174)
12. age sequences wrong for Hawaiian islands (177)
13. thin, parallel, extensive varves not under lakes (188)
14. sand dunes from Canyon (208)
15. unique chemistry of Grand and Hopi basins (210)
16. slot canyons have cracks up to 10 miles deep (212)
17. Grand Canyons inner gorge is a tension crack (212)
18. fault under East Kaibab monocline (224)
19. loess at bottom of ice cores (255)
20. muck on Siberian plateaus (255)
21. rock ice is salty (255)
22. carbon dioxide bubbles in rock ice (256)
23. muck particles in rock ice (256)
24. no fossils below mammoths (256)
25. radiocarbon dating mammoths (257)
26. ice age can be demonstrated (270)
27. salt on Mars (287)
28. moons around some comets (288)
29. mass of solar system heavier than expected (290)
30. a few comets reappear unexpectedly (290)
31. excess heavy hydrogen in 5+-mile-deep water (291)
32. salt and bacteria in comets (291)
33. Oort cloud does not exist (299)
34. no incoming hyperbolic comets (300)
35. argon only in comet crust (300)
36. asteroids are flying rock piles (311)
37. rapidly spinning asteroids are well-rounded (311)
38. asteroid rocks are magnetized (315)
39. deuterium on Themis (315)
40. water is inside large asteroids (315)
41. mining asteroids too costly (315)
42. Deimos has a very low density (318)
43. Mars sediments deposited through air (322)
44. heavy hydrogen in space ice (322)
45. comets are rich in oxygen-18 (364)
46. lineaments correlate with earthquakes (364)
47. little radioactivity on Moon, Mars (367)
48. carbon-14 in old bones (432)
49. bacteria on Mars (457)
50. spin rate and direction of Ceres (327)
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies
I’d be interested in the useful prediction of what the next step in the evolution of mankind is going to be.
And not the AGW kind of nonsense of prediction, that *change* is going to happen. Anyone can claim that.
If science it going to prove itself *useful* then it ought to be able to PREdict the next change, not observe it and claim *See, we were right. Change happened just like we predicted*.
Well, DUH!!! Of course change is going to happen.
What is predictable is that if I subject a population of bacteria to ten different stresses, the genome of the population will change such that the stressful conditions become optimal or normal conditions.
Biologists cannot predict WHAT EXACT mutations will arise - but we know that they will - and that those variations that arise that act to reduce the stress on the organism will predominate in subsequent generations.
Moreover evolutionary science demonstrated is predictive utility rather dramatically recently when the existence of a fish-tetrapod transition was predicted to be at a particular location at a particular time period - and low and behold - they found “Tiktaalik”.
You say “Well DUH!!!! Of course change (in DNA/living organisms) is going to happen”.
Because evolution is defined as a change in the genetic makeup of a population you may as well have said...
Well DUH!!!! Of course evolution is going to happen.
What would possibly stop it? Where is the mechanism to keep DNA exactly the same so that adaptive changes don't arise and predominate?
The funny thing is that he gets so incensed when we call out the fact that the term “evolution” is being conflated to mean both “change over time” (which is correct), and
goo-to-you, particles-to-people, molecules-to-man “evolution”.
The conflation is on purpose. It hides the illogic of
“Given: species change in response to enviromental pressure.
Conclusion: goo-to-you is true”
Also, wrt your “next step in the evolution of mankind” - that assumption MUST be addressed, because it totally devalues what we are NOW as “inferior” to some future superman, and invariably leads to programs of “guided evolution” or eugenics.
Erosion is a process. Mountains and valleys are a result of that process. Erosion and Mountains cannot be said to be the same thing - although they ARE related.
Moreover we are still discussing HOW adaptive change in response to environmental pressures is carried out - isn't it you whose described model needed all useful variations of DNA that ever existed and ever will exist within a population to be put into the primordial “kind”? Have you any idea how impossible that is using actual real and non-miraculous molecules?
Evolution changes. It adapts. Adaptation to new conditions doesn't make one “superior” and the previous adaptations to previous conditions “inferior”. Evolution doesn't unambiguously improve things. A race horse is not fast - and just as good as a normal horse at everything else - a race horse is fast at the EXPENSE of sturdy legs that don't break and thick skin that doesn't crack.
Once again, Eugenics is to Evolution as Socialism is to Free-Markets. Both see a highly productive system with millions of individual actors pursuing their own self interest - and think that centralized authority had better crack down on that right away - because they know better than “the market” what is desired.
Eugenics could work in a totalitarian society to breed smarter humans, or stronger humans, or healthier longer lived humans - but always at the expense of something else.
Despite the empty promises of Socialism and Eugenics “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”.
State it or deny it:
Observed “evolution”, ie, change in species,
proves goo-to-you “evolution”.
Simple enough. Yes or No. Nothing else.
Discarding the will of God, man will manipulate DNA in an effort to improve the human race (eliminate birth defects, tendency to disease, etc.) This may be spurred by women insisting on a perfect baby every time and suing when their expectations are not met. For lack of tort reform, a defective baby may already be seen as a "get rich quick" opportunity via a wrongful birth lawsuit.
If God does not intervene - but I am confident He will - the optimum child for the "civilized world" could ultimately be the product of a test tube (like the movie Gattica) - where "natural born" babies are considered to be sub-human.
No, if God does not intervene - but I am confident He will - evolution will not matter. In the name of ridding the world of disease and improving inheritable traits such as intelligence and beauty and avoiding lawsuits - mankind will continue down the road of eugenics by another name.
Which gets us right back to the heart of this thread.
And notice how *useful* that all is.
Well said, sister.....
Absolutely not! Observed evolution, the change within species, and occasionally the branching off of a new species (which also has been directly observed) does not prove “goo to you” abiogenesis of non living “goo” to living organism - or of a “goo” one cell organism to mankind.
However the observed rate of change is both necessary and sufficient to explain a 2% difference in genetic DNA between two separated populations over some six million years.