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.
I am, and I like your language!
It is glaringly apparent to this casual observer that you did not even read betty boop’s post. It is as if you are responding to someone else and some other post entirely! I wonder that anyone has the patience to continue trying to post to you at all. But that’s the betty boop I remember!
betty boop said this: 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.)
I responded to that by asking what the molecular difference was such that a small minority were “programmed for “success” “internally,”” while the vast majority were not.
I am one of the few on this thread who is willing (or able)to actually discuss the issues rather than making it personal.
Care to discuss the issue? Or are you going to try to make it personal again?
lol....... joy is such a blessing...
Even joy bouncing like a loose football all random and willy nilly.. -OR-
soaring like an eagle in peace and regal comfort.. as a heavenly display of promise..
I know of no scientist who derives his/her identity or self-worth from a theory. If you have an example of such a scientist, could you post it here? If you have any credible evidence that scientists, in general, base their sense of self-worth or identity in scientific theories, could you present it, please?
There is no issue of "refusing to let Darwin's theory be wrong" here. The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn't, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.
Of course, the (doomed) efforts to discredit the theory of evolution really have nothing to do with science. I think they exist because, as a document of the beginning of Earth, life, and human life, the book of Genesis doesn't match much of what we know about the world at all, and it has too many internal inconsistencies. That upsets (some) people, for whom faith is somehow invalid if they must accept that Genesis is not a literal account. For me, it's no big deal. Faith is one thing, science another, and I'm fine with that.
Except for this one. This one continues to flourish in the minds of many, despite the fact that the scientific (evidentiary) underpinnings are simply not there.
The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.
My sense is you and people like allmendream — myrmidons sent from DU to trouble the Christian citizens who frequent FreeRepublic — have blinders on their eyes and braces on their brains. It seems impossible that they should ever see the "big picture" of Reality in its fullness. Cognitively, they seem to function at the level of machines: They live in a world of two-value logic — a logic which can propound only two possible answers to any question: True or False. Yes or No. 1 or 0.
IMHO, at minimum, to truly get a grip on understanding the world around us, a two-value (Aristotelian, as in the Law of the Excluded Middle) logical system cannot suffice. We need at least a three-value logical system: True, False, Undecidable.
You wrote:
Of course, the (doomed) efforts to discredit the theory of evolution really have nothing to do with science. I think they exist because, as a document of the beginning of Earth, life, and human life, the book of Genesis doesn't match much of what we know about the world at all, and it has too many internal inconsistencies. That upsets (some) people, for whom faith is somehow invalid if they must accept that Genesis is not a literal account. For me, it's no big deal. Faith is one thing, science another, and I'm fine with that.But this only tells me that you do not understand what Genesis 1 and 2 actually say. Truth rarely reduces to the "literal." Understanding requires more than that.
To my understanding, Genesis 1 and 2 perfectly match up to my knowledge and direct experience of this world.
So, what do you and I have to talk about? We're not even standing on the same ground.
That line jumped out at me the most. They don't KNOW what they are asserting, they conjecture and extrapolate what they are asserting. And those conjectures and extrapolations are based on assumptions that have holes that are easily punched through and can be demonstrated to be inaccurate.
Indeed, MrB. That is precisely the problem — the existence of which they simply REFUSE to acknowledge.
All I can say is this: May God have mercy on their souls. For they ought to know better. And they will be held accountable for the sheer sneering contempt they display towards the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — on Judgement Day, when Christ Logos Alpha and Omega — the Ultimate Judge — separates the wheat from the chaff....
Thank you so very much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
Well, it's not just evolution but any theory that pretends to be able to look back into unobserved time. The Big Bang also comes to mind. Such 'theories' are based on the assumption of naturalism (the fallacy of begging the question) and the fallacy of composition. We could add others.
The fallacy of composition says that something that is true of a part is also true of the whole. You often see this one when 'scientists' argue that because the 'scientific method' can be used to create computers that it is also useful for explaining origins (of life, the universe, etc).
“The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn’t, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.”
Spirited: First of all, evolutionism is not empirical science, as even Karl Popper was honest enough to admit:
“Imagine There’s No God-—only evolution” http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2787047/posts
Evolutionism, whether a spiritual concept such as Teilhard’s or a material concept such as Darwins’ is a metaphysical program purpotedly answering the ultimate question of origins. However, it ultimately implodes into nihilism.
Next, the taproot of Darwin’s concept stretches back to the most ancient evolutionary conception so far translated, that is the Enuma Elish.
Man is fully capable of deceiving himself and deceiving others. And when men do not want the true, living God to exist they inevitably turn to evolutionary conceptions and then mock, scoff, and belittle those who refuse to follow them into their folly.
IMHO, only when third party undecideds are lurking is it worth the effort to engage a poster with an upside down worldview.
Thank you so much for your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!
Actually I would be very interested in the person that could reasonable prove to me that the third human on this planet DID NOT come from two other people..
Where did the two originals come from?..
Now theres a question... but the third one is my dilemma..
It may be possible that the Adam and Eve story was a metaphor or metaphorical “inference”.. true.. but even so they came from somewhere.. And the “evolution” story was and is just that “a story”.. A convoluted Yarn to be sure but really its just a Yarn..
Its even possible there was another society of beings somewhat like humans before Adam and Eve.. Who is to know?.. It may be “we’ll” never know for sure.. how humanity started really..
Humans definitely do not like not knowing.. so they make up things.. Like atoms, little balls rolling around other balls.. which is a cartoon.. Humans like cartoons.. Einstein studied the world telescopically and Bohrs studied microscopically.. They argued the same page within different books.. Did GOD get the whole thing started or not?..
Nobody really knows what God is.. but everything needs a source.. God is a good X factor.. Until another source comes along better.. I’m going with God.. Whatever God is.. Yes, that means I do not know.. I am good with that..
One thing is for sure.. if you know.. faith is no longer needed..
Having faith is an important needed lesson of life..
LIFE!.. no one knows what life is either.. or death..
betty: The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.
Spirited: “It is better for a man to meet a bear robbed of her whelps, than a fool in his folly.” Proverbs 17:12
Lacking free will a bear does what a bear must do. Fools freely choose folly and then rationalize on its’ behalf.
Thank you for sharing your views, dear hosepipe!
An "upside down worldview" indeed. An inversion of reality....
I do agree with your statement, dearest sister in Christ. It's just sometimes, I get a little frustrated trying to engage the upside-down worldview people in rational discourse.
I'm not here to tell people what to think, but to show them where to look. But these folks won't even go look.... It's as if they are hermetically sealed against any new idea that does not conform to their iron-clad presuppositions. Sigh....
Thank you so very much for your kind words of support, dearest sister in Christ!
"When we talk about "the degrees of knowledge," we implicitly acknowledge the degrees of being that correspond to them. .....
"What is necessary above all is "to discriminate and discern degrees of knowing, its organization and its internal differentiations....
"....a shallow soul is satisfied by staying on the surface of things. The deep soul knows that no merely scientific explanation can ever satisfy man, whereas the shallow soul seems content to play in the little blandbox of efficient causes. .....
"[What we need is something] capable of speaking to our age of stupidity."
bttt
In the past, I have discussed the idea that the measure of soul is depth. To put it bluntly, a developed soul will see much more deeply into the nature of reality, whereas a shallow soul is satisfied by staying on the surface of things. The deep soul knows that no merely scientific explanation can ever satisfy man, whereas the shallow soul seems content to play in the little blandbox of efficient causes.
Thus spake the ineffable Gagdad Bob!
But I'd bet our "scientistic friends" do not have a CLUE about that of which Gagdad Bob is speaking. For one thing, they deny the existence of soul hands-down, not just the existence of God.
They are machine-like thinkers. All questions reduce to Yes/No, True/False, 1/0 answers. They creep along the horizontal, thinking that only efficient causes are needed to explain the action of an evolving Universe.
The idea of Final Cause — purpose, goals — is absolutely excluded from the universe contained within their own minds. Contemporary science refuses to engage the idea of Final Cause.
But absent Final Cause, there is no meaning to be found in the world. And human beings cannot live in, cannot orient themselves to, a meaningless world. That's just a fact of human nature.
Thank you ever so much, dear Matchett-PI, for the link!!!
So true, dear sister in Christ! Also, bears cannot lie. Either to themselves or to other bears. Only foolish humans can think lying can bring any good into existence. They do not understand that any lie — "white" or "'black" — constitutes a defacement of the Reality in which they themselves must live.
JMHO FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for your insights, dear sister!
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.