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 Darwin family produced, developed, and lead the eugenics movement for nearly a century. This is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact.
Divorcing the Darwin family from the evils of eugenics and focusing on science would be like crediting Hitler for the Autobahn and ignoring the Holocaust.
Don’t forget the Huxleys.
I don’t know. They all kept cats as pets? They all enjoyed ice cream?
That should be reason enough to kill all cats and outlaw ice cream. /sarcasm
The Darwin family produced, developed, and lead (I think you meant “led” here, unless you are really blaming Charles Darwin for “lead poisoning¨ too) the eugenics movement for nearly a century. This is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact.
Divorcing the Darwin family from the evils of eugenics and focusing on science would be like crediting Hitler for the Autobahn and ignoring the Holocaust.
Well Hitler did build some very good roads that are still in use today by many Germans who still drive on them in their VW’s.
And two out of four of Ronald Regan’s kids are stark raving lunatic leftists. Just saying.
With you 100%. Kooks give this site a bad name.
More despicable slander of science.
I would divorce the theory of evolution from the Darwin family. There was no ownership of the theory any more than by Wallace or Huxley. All made observations and made a hypothesis that became a theory that has and will change in many aspects. All of the men made mistakes and had their own set of values. Interesting history but not central to today’s science.
Eugenics was and is a horrible set of ideas and practices. Like AGW today, men twisted science to justify their politics. Their experimentation was ill informed and twisted by racial and ethnic hatreds. Much of what Sanger did fit with her racial and class bigotry. Like others she used and twisted the science of the day to fit. Good grief, so called scientists counted bumps on people’s heads and measured skulls to support preconceived prejudices.
Today’s science is in danger of similar misuse. Only good science will out bad science. Already the politicized “scientists” are moving to climate change over global warming which is a move in the right direction. I’d like to see a well controlled study of just what happens to the co2 we are putting out but as long as worshipers of Gaia prevail, that isn’t likely.
Today’s moves toward euthanasia and population control by abortion have more to do with utilitarianism than science. Stalin and Mao produced their own perverted religions to justify their killing and we are moving closer to that religion — Marxism.
Hmmmmm.
ping
INDEED.
I call Godwin.
Marx and Engels, for instance, saw the value of it for their own agendas. Sir Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) was the one who coined the term "eugenics."
Jeepers when one reduces human beings to the same level as all animals, many things that are normal in breeding of livestock and companion animals can be applied. Indeed, were applied.
Thank you so much for the ping!
“Don’t forget those evil “Geologists” And them “Physicists.”
Spirited: Ideas have consequences precisely because all men really do have two sides, a dark side easily seduced by evil hence prone to doing wrong and a light side, defined here as an unsullied conscience in search of moral good.
Geology and physics are not deviously disguised Godless cosmogonies as Darwinism is, therefore do not pose the danger that Darwinism poses.
Darwinism is not empirical science but rather a metaphysical evolutionary cosmogony whose tap-root stretches back to the Enuma Elish, the ancient evolutionary cosmogony of Sumeria and Babylonia.
Symbolically, Darwinism is Sauron’s One Ring of power. It’s immediate appeal is to the dark side of man because it holds that while all mem evolved out of pre-existing pond scum, some evolved men are nevertheless superior to the all others due to a predestination-process known as natural selection.
The greatest irony of all is that Darwinism denies man’s sin nature out of one side of its mouth, while out of the other loudly proclaiming his guilt by holding up a bright blood-red neon-arrow blinking out the message: man is a liar, thief, and murderer guilty of enslaving torturing and murderering millions of men, women, and children.
One of the chief lies of our time is this: Darwinism is science.
TTOE is anti-Creator. Darwinists would not demand the removal of the Creator from their houses of worship IF the TTOE did not conflict with the Scripture. Oh, Scripture does not claim or even hint this earth is young. Liberals love using that unholy scientific methodology and the blind are rooting around for acorns.
Evolution, by contrast, would fall in the historical sciences category - along the same lines as anthropology, archeology and Egyptology. The theory is a "just so" story built around spotty evidence (quantizations) in the geological record (a continuum.)
In the former sciences - the hard sciences - the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In the historical sciences, the reverse is true - after all, the record is spotty at best.
And so the historical sciences get away with making a lot of claims where validity is granted based on the credentials of the speaker or the popularity of the claim among his peers. There are few means to falsify such claims by objective observation or empirical tests.
And so many people take their claims as confidently as if it were spoken by a physicist or chemist. But they are not comparable and should not be valued the same.
It is absolutely tragic, in my view, that evolution theory was taken as scientifically credible reasoning to devalue human life whether via socialism, communism, sorting, culling, killing, breeding, abortion, infanticide or other eugenics - or affects of atheism and extreme animal rights activism.
It rather depends upon whom it is doing the defining of “unfit.” Whether or not “one accepts evolution as a necessary and inevitable force in nature.” Don’t you think?
For instance, we can imagine that most 0bmatrons would be pleased to define Conservative Christians, and most Conservatives in general, as “unfit.”
Surely, other examples come easily to mind.
Darwinism defines the “unfit”. Whatever doesn’t survive was unfit.
I understood “Darwinism” to not exist (according to all the best representatives of Science). Do you, perchance, have in mind the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and its logical corollary, the theory of the survival of the fittest)?
But, using your expression “Darwinism” for the moment, permit me to observe that “Darwinism” possesses no personality and lacks the ability to define anything. It is those who use the term who define the “unfit.” Defining “the unfit” is a favorite pastime of Darwinian mullahs and imans, so does your horizon expand to include religious and political Darwinism, in which case we would have to declare the Aztecs and the ancient Egyptians “unfit,” or does it have no connotations other than scientific, and can therefore lead us to no religious or political conclusions?
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.