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.

[trisham]

That was one of the most well conceived and executed posts I have yet seen.

[allmendream]

“ejacu-gelato splooge between your ears” Agamemnon

An example of what passes for reasonable discourse among Creationists.

[betty boop]

Darwin surprisingly enough manifested enough humility to admit that if credible evidence of reproducing transitional forms didn’t exist, his whole premise was toast. Remarkably, it’s his philosophical inheritors like yourself who have hitched your self-worth to this failed premise, and who can’t seem able to let go in face of all the failure, because to do so upends your whole identity.

So true: Darwin did say that about the [paleontologically still missing] "transitional forms"; e.g., in the pre-Cambrian....

What I don't understand is how and why a person would want to derive his entire sense of self-identity and self-worth from a scientific theory that rests on shaky evidentiary grounds. It's as if such folks absolutely refuse to let Darwin's theory be wrong. But if it is "false," so is the psyche constructed on it....

Or so it seems to me, FWIW.

Dear Agamemnon, you wrote:

I never use the term “micro-evolution,” because it tends to confuse people just like you. The correct concept is that of “adaptation,” because the organism is merely calling upon information with which it has been programmed by its Creator to adapt and to cope with its environment.

Absolutely outstanding observation Agamemnon!

Kudos to you for this simply outstanding essay/post!

[betty boop]

... you rendered amd speechless....

And allmendream is evidently still speechless. But he did reply to me at Post #360.

As I said, he's still speechless.

Oh, well....

[allmendream]

So when a novel antibiotic targeting ribosomes is introduced to a naive population and wipes out over 90% of it, and the surviving population is seen to have mutational DNA variations in the gene for its ribosomes so that the antibiotic doesn't bind to and inhibit as well - why and how did those survivors ‘call upon information with which it was programed by its creator’ - while the majority that died did not?

Are you suggesting that every member of the population HAD the information to make the mutated non-susceptible ribosomes - but that only SOME chose to express it? How and why?

[metmom]

An example of what passes for reasonable discourse among Creationists.

Which is still stratospherically above what I've seen evos post about creationists, especially over at DC without the moderating effects of the mods.

[allmendream]

Well than, maybe you like Agamemnon's “ejacu-gelato splooge”. I think it is disgusting and typical of how Creationists argue - no need to go to DU or DC or anywhere else - that is how they like to argue HERE and NOW on THIS THREAD - with disgusting personal attacks rather than discussing the issues.

[hosepipe]

[ What I don't understand is how and why a person would want to derive his entire sense of self-identity and self-worth from a scientific theory that rests on shaky evidentiary grounds. It's as if such folks absolutely refuse to let Darwin's theory be wrong. But if it is "false," so is the psyche constructed on it.... ]

Exactly.. its a matter if INDENTITY..

Are you a temporal flesh-suit housing an eternal spirit waiting for a freedom event..
-OR-
Are you a Suit of Flesh waiting to be made road-kill by an unforeseen event..
You know..... death.. (by some vehicle)

This drama is palpable.. attended by many prop-comics..
Who are you?.. is the identifying phrase..

Are you a would-be Carrot-top or one more serious in "tone and demeanor"..
The whole planet is indeed "a stage".. and we all are merely actors..

"Evolutionists" metaphorically wearing a monocle and smoking a pipe speaking in serious tones..
Do not fool me a bit... even with good dialog wearing a tie using the pipe as a pointer at a blackboard......

[wagglebee]

What I don't understand is how and why a person would want to derive his entire sense of self-identity and self-worth from a scientific theory that rests on shaky evidentiary grounds. It's as if such folks absolutely refuse to let Darwin's theory be wrong.

I think, and few of them would ever publicly admit this, the reason is because they have complete and pathological hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition.

From the Garden forward, Satan's temptations of man have all boiled down to the simple notion that man could play god at least within his own sphere. In Darwinism, Satan took this temptation to an even greater level, he showed man a way to replace God with science and that God doesn't exist.

Darwinism is Satan's masterpiece because it marks the only time that he has been able to tempt the masses by convincing them that God isn't real. It is this that Darwinists have staked their lives on and it is the terror of being wrong that keeps them from even considering being wrong. It goes back to the adage that if you live as if God exists and at the end of your life you find out you were wrong, you haven't really lost anything,\; but if you live as if there is no God, you will be in a lot of trouble when you find out He does exist.

[trisham]

Excellent post!

[betty boop]

Are you suggesting that every member of the population HAD the information to make the mutated non-susceptible ribosomes - but that only SOME chose to express it? How and why?

Well at the very least, allmendream, to ask questions as to "how" and "why" indicates that the problems to which such questions refer might be valid problems. That's progress.

To answer your question: The "survivors" weren't programmed for "success" "internally," each and every one. Rather, they were responding to a non-local cause "external" to themselves. The "non-survivors" simply weren't "in communicado" with that cause or were irrelevant to it. (So to speak.)

The "secret" of Life does not consist in what cells do; it consists in the organizational principle that governs the entire biological organism, a complex system in Nature.

There is a common presupposition in science that the way to study a complex system is to reduce it to its parts, and then study the parts. The expectation here is that if we know what all the parts are doing, we just "add up" the results and get a full picture of the system.

But this is impossible, especially if the question is: What is Life? To study parts of a biological organism, you pretty much have to kill it first. But if you do, what do you expect to discover about Life?

"We murder to dissect," as a great poet put it.

Here's an analogy that might help, courtesy of the mathematician, complex systems theorist and theoretical biologist Robert Rosen:

Taking a hammer to a watch, for example, will give us a spectrum of parts all right; these may be separated and characterized to our heart's content, but only by a miracle will they tell us either how a watch works or how to make one. This is because two things have happened: application of the hammer has lost information about the original articulated watch and at the same time, it has added irrelevant information about the hammer. What the hammer has given us, then, is not so much a set of parts as a set of artifacts. — Life Itself, New York:Columbia University Press 1991, p. 22. [Emphasis added.]

People clinging to a materialist, mechanistic view of Nature are missing the "big picture."

Or so it seems to me. FWIW.

Thank you so much for writing, dear amd!

[Agamemnon]

An example of what passes for reasonable discourse among Creationists.

And that reply is what passes for "I think I just lost the argument."

Cheers.

[betty boop]

Darwinism is Satan's masterpiece because it marks the only time that he has been able to tempt the masses by convincing them that God isn't real. It is this that Darwinists have staked their lives on and it is the terror of being wrong that keeps them from even considering being wrong.

Sounds about right to me, dear wagglebee! Sometimes I just think such folks are experiencing the same kind of terror that comes when ones is trying to "whistle past the graveyard"....

Satan's work always goes to an "inversion of Reality."

Pascal's Wager is particularly addressed to people who are tempted by such an inversion. Who do not seem to realize that simply "wishing God away" doesn't make God "go away." He is still there, no matter what these people want to be otherwise.

And His Judgement will catch up with them, sooner or later.

We try to warn them. They do not listen.

And if they think I'm wrong about this, the risk they bear for not heeding to "my mistake" is all their own to absorb and bear — with fatal consequences to themselves, now and forevermore.

Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay/post!

[Agamemnon]

“imageo dei” or “imageo goo”?

Exactly the point, MrB! Or is it perhaps, "goo" to "glue?"

I happen to mention something about "glue" in tagline in fact.

It's interesting see how perfectly humorless evolutionists are at their core, isn't it?

To mock their premise is the equivalent of mocking their religion or something -- kind of like the same offense taken by the Church of Liberalism, and the doctrinaire evolutionists, global-warmists, and racists who populate it.

FReegards!

[MrB]

I learned long ago, and I make sure my kids understand this as well -

you can’t debate someone to salvation.

[betty boop]

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.

Dear exDemMom, I am perfectly aware that there are differences in fundamental approach as between theoretical scientists and working scientists. (I gather you are a member of the latter category. Fine.)

Theoretical scientists are alway going for the biggest picture they can get. Working scientisists do not much care for big pictures; what they want is reliable working tools derived from the theoretical sciences.

They don't care about the "hows" and the "whys," only about what works.

Of course, some things can work all the time without any reference to the fundamental causality structure of universal Nature (Reality), to the laws, principles, or truths of the Reality as it actually is — which is precisely what makes the tools oh-so fundamentally reliable as dependable working tools in the first place.

Although it appears you have little use for cosmological questions of any description at all, this does not mean that you are relieved from living in this Cosmos. If you are the least bit interested in that subject, then I'd say: You've got to raise up your eyes to a fuller vision.

Otherwise, you may get your "scientific problems" right every time; but you will never understand anything about the world in which you live and work and breathe....

Just a thought, dear exDemMom. Thank you so much for writing!

[trisham]

:)

[YHAOS]

“An example of what passes for reasonable discourse among Creationists.”

You have a bone to pick with the whole of Judeo-Christian tradition? Or, what? Unless you wish to be more specific, we have to assume your grudge is against all Judeo-Christian belief, or that your object is dirty up a whole people. To what end?

Similar to Shakespeare, the question bears heavily on your shoulders; ‘To sneer, or not to sneer.’

[allmendream]

So both the survivors and the non-survivors had the DNA to make the mutated non-susceptible ribosomes - but only a few percent were “programmed for success internally”?

How and why? What was the difference between those who were “programmed for success” and those that were not?

One had a better filing system to FIND the “in case of novel anti-ribosome antibiotic - break out THIS gene” part of the genome?

Couldn't I just show how fantasyland your proposed mechanism is by showing the genome of the initial population had only ONE gene for ribosomes?

So where did that starting population of one with only ONE gene for a ribosome grow into a population where some were “programmed for success” and others were not - apparently with access to several different variations of the ribosome gene?

Saying something doesn't indicate a mechanism. How were some “programmed for success” and how were others programmed for failure? What was the molecular difference between the majority of the population that died and the small part of the population that survived?