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.
When you claim that it 'evolved' and that 'evolutionary relationships' can be inferred from it.
"The study of evolution and evolutionary relationships is as subject to empirical tests, observation, and falsification as any physics experimentation."
I had hoped you took so long in responding b/c you were busy reading the links I provided [posts #443 & #451 of this thread iirc] and possibly expanding your mind regarding the many varied possibilities for interpreting the geologic and fossil evidence.
Question1: If we assume a much shortened time span for the Earth and Universe, say something corresponding to mankind’s written history, would we not also expect to see that natural adaptations have, in fact, taken place at a very much increased pace over evolutionary speculations?
Question2: If we assume a worldwide flood, could that natural disaster and subsequent smaller ones have dramatically increased the stress and micro-evolutionary changes for those same affected lifeforms?
I perused your homepage and must assume that you are 10 or more years younger than I  and have been heavily submersed in liberal academic circles that do not allow other biblical speculations regarding natural history. I pray for you to continue reading and studying much of that with which you currently dis-agree [as I did over the last 10-15 years].
Seriously, I find obvious the evolutionist claims that a lightning-fast process of microevolution [which has been observed] is in effect, but the gradual process of macroevolution cannot possibly occur b/c it has neither been observed nor fossil evidence found.
If, in fact, the Bible specs for Noah’s Ark are true then we could conclude:
a.) loads of storage space for approx 20k animal kinds ~ say something on the order of a 3 tiered modern day ocean going barge,
b.) worldwide evidence of quickly buried and fossilized lifeforms in situ among many varied sedimentary layers representing the uniqueness of both for each and every environmental habitat, &
c.) several ancient civilizations to have recorded similar legendary stories...
I should also point out that the idea of “missing links” is NOT a red herring. Since we have produced from the fossil record an examples of more species in history than are found today.
In fact Dr. Walt Brown PhD has speculated with his hydroplate theory all my prior claims and much more in the link:
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
LOL ~ mitch5501 ~ your musings remind me of that strange Irishman from Brave Heart
“I’m the most wanted man on my island. Except I’m not on my island of course”
“The Lord tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he’s pretty sure you’re f*(!~d.”
Can’t recall that characters name right now though...
correction for end of prior post #2.
Since we have produced from the fossil record MANY examples of more species in history than are found today.
The character from Brave Heart in prior post was Stephen ~ not aware of any last name provided.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear YHAOS!
Alamo-Girl to exDemMom: Perhaps you have misjudged your correspondents on this thread?
Spirited: It is not so much a case of misjudging as it is of a freely made choice to accept one set of conceptions (i.e., Godless evolutionism, something from nothing) rather than another, special creation ex nihil-—God IS.
Tragically, America increasingly resembles the now dead Marxist Communist Soviet Union.
Though Marxist Communism billed itself as scientific and of course evolutionary it was in fact attempting to “scientifically” annihilate the Christian conception of man made in the spiritual image of the Triune God and replace that with a Buddhist conception of a collective unconscious, a quiet type of pantheism.
Central to this attempt is absolute mind control. This being the case, scientifically-engineered New Soviet Man is no longer an individual soul/spirit with a mind of its’ own but rather a part of the collective unconscious for whom the Party (Orwell’s Big Brother) is the One-Mind.
Natan Sharansky, a dissident in the former Marxist-Communist Soviet Union refused to “lose” his individual soul/spirit and was as a result accused of non-conformist thought. Sharansky describes the Soviet Union as a spiritual tyranny where,
“there were no dissidents (because) they were simply killed immediately.”
As a result of psychological and physical terror-tactics-—inversion of meaning, propaganda of the lie, re-education, hate crime laws, speech codes, and other mind-control tactics, everyone became double thinkers.
To outside observers notes Sharansky, double thinkers appear as true believers:
“everybody says the same thing, everybody votes the same way, everybody speaks with passion.”
But it is an illusion caused by fear of speaking the truth. These people, he noted,
“live with self-censorship throughout their lives. Since the regime demands loyalty right from childhood, many don’t even notice. They just automatically control how they express themselves.”
But when a “fear society disappears or becomes weak, people suddenly start saying what they feel,” Sharansky commented, and “It’s such a big relief.”
To determine if a society is fear-based, Sharansky applies what he defines as the “town square test.” In this test, if you,
“can go to the center of town (i.e.,Free Republic) and publicly express your views without being punished (by FR’s thought-police), you have a free society” even though that society may not be just.
However, if you are “punished for your views you live in a fear society,”said Sharansky.
“In such societies there are always three types of population:
True believers, who accept the ideology...dissidents, who take risks to speak publicly; and double thinkers, who have doubts or disagreements about the official ideology but are afraid to express them publicly.”
In conclusion, Sharansky notes that the level “of dissidence is always a function of how tough the regime is.” (The Power of Freedom, published in The American Enterprise, Apr/May 2005, pp. 38-39)
Measured by Sharanskys’ town-square test we can see that America has been descending into a fear-based society for over eighty years. Already we can see the three types of population.
1. Those “who take risks to speak publicly” exemplified by Free Republics ‘truth warriors”
2. those “who have doubts or disagreements about the ideology but are afraid to express them publicly.”
3. true-believers who serve as “gate-keepers” and/or thought police. It is their job to publicly shame, rebuke, and ridicule all who dare to speak truth to lies.
In this light we can see all three types right here in FR.
There is one other group of people-—Big Brother, also known as the West’s Progressive ‘elites.’ The real evil comes from within this group.
simultaneously replaced by green-progressive totalitarianism, the three types of population described by Sharansky come into focus. In general, Progressive Liberals are the true believers. Rabid zealots, brazen liars, rebels against all authority, they freely destroy, transgress, scoff, demean, blaspheme, demonize, and otherwise psychologically terrorize the large body of fearful double thinkers.
I know I already responded to this post, but I have been thinking about why this particular person, who is relatively unknown among scientists, should have such importance to literal creationists. (I can't say he is completely unknown; he may have been mentioned, but he certainly does not have the importance of, e.g., Robert Koch.)
I think the reasoning behind elevating his importance must go something like this:
Of course, that kind of reasoning is extremely circular. It serves the purpose of trying to convince people who do not know or understand the scientific method that life scientists avoid using the scientific method. Of course, that is not true. We most certainly use the scientific method. It is because of countless attempts at falsification over the last ~170 years that the theory has been revised multiple times: revisiting and refining ideas is what science is all about.
Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. He was also a social and political philosopher of considerable stature, a self-professed critical-rationalist, a dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally, a committed advocate and staunch defender of the Open Society, and an implacable critic of totalitarianism in all of its forms. One of the many remarkable features of Popper's thought is the scope of his intellectual influence. In the modern technological and highly-specialised world scientists are rarely aware of the work of philosophers; it is virtually unprecedented to find them queuing up, as they have done in Popper's case, to testify to the enormously practical beneficial impact which that philosophical work has had upon their own.So much for his being "relatively unknown among scientists."
Again, to paraphrase, he said that the more a theory survives attempts to falsify it, the more confident we can be in the theory. We cannot be confident in theories which cannot be falsified.
In my view, so-called "theories" in the historical sciences - e.g. evolution biology, archeology, anthropology, Egyptology - are more akin to paradigms. Or if you prefer a blueprint into which new evidence is fit.
But unlike the hard sciences (e.g. physics) where falsification of the theory causes the theory to be discarded - if the evidence will not fit the historical science paradigm, then it is explained away with a "just-so" amendment to the story.
betty boop has mentioned the Cambrian explosion not fitting the evolution theory of gradual change over time. The response was the "punctuated equilibrium" amendment - a "just so" story.
More examples of things that do not fit the paradigm:
Dr. Schroeder points to the thirty plus body plans that seemingly appeared out of nowhere in the Cambrian explosion - and despite subsequent near complete extinctions - no new body plans arose in the fossil record.
Amoeba, for instance, do not die of old age - so what is the selection advantage to programmed cell death? Likewise, there is a temporal non-locality of cells achieving maintenance and repair before the need.
All of this without even mentioning the impossibility of the information content (DNA) arising by unguided natural phenomena. Crick, after all, did not embrace panspermia (alien seeding) without cause. Ditto for Dawkins.
And then there is the rise of autonomy, syntax and semiosis and more. Jeepers, even the question "what is life v. non-life/death in nature" - which is vital to the hard sciences asked to explain the rise of complexity in biological systems - is of almost no interest at all in the historical sciences.
Truly, the difference between the disciplines - hard sciences v historical sciences - cannot be easily reconciled:
Many biologists consider physical laws, artificial life, robotics, and even theoretical biology as largely irrelevant for their research. In the 1970s, a prominent molecular geneticist asked me, "Why do we need theory when we have all the facts?" At the time I dismissed the question as silly, as most physicists would. However, it is not as silly as the converse question, Why do we need facts when we have all the theories? These are actually interesting philosophical questions that show why trying to relate biology to physics is seldom of interest to biologists, even though it is of great interest to physicists. Questioning the importance of theory sounds eccentric to physicists for whom general theories is what physics is all about. Consequently, physicists, like the skeptics I mentioned above, are concerned when they learn facts of life that their theories do not appear capable of addressing. On the other hand, biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts. Ernst Mayr (1997) believes this difference is severe enough to separate physical and biological models: "Yes, biology is, like physics and chemistry, a science. But biology is not a science like physics and chemistry; it is rather an autonomous science on a par with the equally autonomous physical sciences."
There are fundamental reasons why physics and biology require different levels of models, the most obvious one is that physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical laws that have no memory, while evolution depends, at least to some degree, on control of dynamics by rate-independent memory structures. A less obvious reason is that Pearson's "corpuscles" are now described by quantum theory while biological subjects require classical description in so far as they function as observers. This fact remains a fundamental problem for interpreting quantum measurement, and as I mention below, this may still turn out to be essential in distinguishing real life from macroscopic classical simulacra. I agree with Mayr that physics and biology require different models, but I do not agree that they are autonomous models. Physical systems require many levels of models, some formally irreducible to one another, but we must still understand how the levels are related. Evolution also produces hierarchies of organization from cells to societies, each level requiring different models, but the higher levels of the hierarchy must have emerged from lower levels. Life must have emerged from the physical world. This emergence must be understood if our knowledge is not to degenerate (more than it has already) into a collection of disjoint specialized disciplines.
The big thinkers come from theology, philosophy, physics and mathematics - they do not arise from the historical sciences.
In my view, when the Theory of Evolution falls - it will not be because of Biologists - and it will not be because of Creationists, Philosophers and Theologians - it will fall because of the Mathematicians and Physicists who were invited by the Biologists to their table.
The hard sciences do not bow to paradigms.
These remarks deserve deep consideration, dearest sister in Christ!
It seems exDemMom rephrased Popper's statement, quote: "Popper stated that all theories must withstand attempts at falsification," when he didn't say that at all. What he said (in effect) was: "keep on trying to falsify your theories; the more they can survive falsification tests, the more confidence we can have that our theories are correct, thus reliable."
This is precisely what the historical sciences, most notably including Darwinist theory, refuse to do. They don't try to falsify their theory. Rather, they select evidence on the basis of what can validate their theory and ignore all the rest anything to uphold the "just-so story," even though it is increasingly difficult to do that.
You gave Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory as an example of an attempt to circumvent what the fossil record shows (or rather doesn't show). Gould was evidently well aware that contemporary paleontologists were not so much discovering evidence of evolutionary "change" as evidence of stasis lack of change in species over vast periods of time. (So much for Darwinian "gradualism.")
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996Yet as Gould explained:
Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome... brings terrible distress.... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as "no data." If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it. Stephen Jay Gould, Lecture at Hobart and William Smith College, 1980And that takes care of that!
Dearest sister in Christ, you mentioned "a temporal nonlocality of cells achieving maintenance and repair before the need." Which smacks of a non-local final cause at work. Of course, all consideration of "final cause" has been banished from science ever since Sir Francis Bacon first propounded the Scientific Method.... Final causes always speak to purposes and goals that the other three causes (formal, material, efficient) "serve."
Though systematically "banished" from science, I do not know how it is possible to explain biological function without respect to the purpose the function serves. And this would be a final cause.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your superb, fascinating essay/post! And thank you for the link to Pattee his observations are well worth our deep consideration.
Relatively unknown? Really?!
Your declaration strains credulity.
Sir Karl Popper (1902 1994), an implacable critic of totalitarianism, is one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, and also a social and political philosopher of considerable stature. He was a famed and dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally, and unprecedented in the scope of his intellectual influence among both Scientists and Philosophers.
You can find words to this effect (and many more) in any reputable encyclopedia of philosophy (such as The Oxford Companion to Philosophy ).
I think the reasoning behind elevating his importance must go something like this:
I think you need to regear your thinking.
( ^8 }
Well said, Spirited.
And, of course, central to this absolute mind control you mention is what passes as education in Western Civilization.
I would prefer that government, particularly federal government, have nothing to do with education. I would prefer to ban governmental authority from asserting any control over the minds of the people. I do not trust government to discern (intellectually) the true from the false. I do not trust government to honestly report what is true and what is false, in the unlikely event it does stumble over them in the dark. This has always been true, and it is doubly true with respect to the One-Mind indoctrination you describe.
We are discussing, among other things, state control of science education at the elementary and secondary level. In a representative republic, you dont get a categorical edict from the appropriate governing board or commission; so a representative republic must be done away with, and be replaced with a Socialist/Progressive regime. Welcome to the new USSSA . . . comrade.
But, if it seems the only way to resolve what we believe to be a critically important interest in the teaching of science is to violate a critically important fundamental principle of representative government, then that sort of circumstance ought to impress us with the serious need for a reappraisal of our understanding of the relationship between government and education, or to surrender to the local ruling Progressive Commissar.
Our universities have become cesspools of Socialist/Marxist thought control and I dont see any groundswell of resistance coming from the Science Community.
Yet, many a Darwinian Imam would claim that the right of conscience says exactly nothing about where we should look to find intermediate fossils, or to know which animals offer good prospects for the development of drugs and vaccines. Nor does it bring us any insights on antibiotic resistance or the practical applications of DNA sequencing. Likewise, the same criticism is directed against the idea of government by the consent of the governed and many another liberal concept of Eighteenth Century Enlightenment. These ideas, they (many of our scientist friends) say, are mere useless, nay even harmful, philosophical concepts, and so inferior therefore as to be unworthy of contemplation at all.
Why should we not, in many instances, believe that our Scientist friends are hopeless dogmatists of some forlorn doctrine seeking to evict all non-phenomenal or spiritual reality from human cognizance altogether?
Whenever they are overcome by a momentary seizure of candor, are we not regaled with thinly veiled threats of jail or the removal of our children from their homes for abuse? Or, failing that, a threat to deny our children the benefits of a higher education unless we unreservedly embrace Darwinism and eschew all Christian beliefs that might be construed as contrary to the Theory of Evolution?
Despite the multitude of blessings that The Enlightenment has reigned down upon their heads, many of our science friends still have not come to appreciate that you cannot have freedom of inquiry without freedom of conscience (Ive said it before . . . expect the likelihood that Ill say it again).
We have witnessed people in this forum suggest that raising a child in a Christian home is a form of child abuse, and threaten the removal of the child from its home as a reasonable protective action (if, of course, all opposition to secular Darwinian philosophy does not cease immediately). In Pop Cult, witness the estimable Dawkins say the same thing.
Similarly, we have witnessed people in this forum declare that homeschoolers should just flatly, with or without benefit of an entrance exam, be denied entrée to any accredited college or university.
Likewise, it has been proposed that the states regulate homeschooling entirely out of existence.
In the meantime, we find ourselves subjected to the usual sensitivity malarkey, the standard Marxist/Socialist bromides, maladroit history studies, the ubiquitous PC bravo sierra, and always (ALWAYS) in the name of diversity we must all think alike. If all else fails, check your nearest university, and, increasingly a public school near you.
Indeed, one poster on this forum (since departed from same), well known to many of us, went so far as to declare himself one who is not a friend of academic freedom (and he, I think, is not alone in this sentiment). This is an astounding declaration to come from an adherent of a discipline so completely dependent on the right of free inquiry for its viability and its integrity, and on Western Civilization for its very continued existence.
Yet, when one raises these issues, the response is at once the familiar sound of crickets. Our friends who count themselves as among those who are Darwinian Mullahs wish only to argue philosophy and religion under the colour of science in an effort to inoculate themselves from rebuttal.
Everyone knows it is Stalinist Progressives, not Christians, who infest the campi of our universities like maggots on a carcass, and who have seized control of research funding. Everyone knows that it is these same Progressives who represent the totalitarian thinking we hear endlessly from the cultural cesspool that Western Civilization has become, and that is meant to destroy the freedom of inquiry so painfully erected by Western Civilization these past two thousand years. And, finally, everyone knows that this savagery has now spread into our general popular and political culture and that we stand but one or two elections away from complete socialist subjugation.
In the meantime, our erstwhile friends, these same Darwinian Mullahs, stand mute.
More than once, I have stated that I would be very glad to know that I am mistaken in my assessment, and to receive directions where I may go to join in the desperate struggle to reclaim Western culture from Marxist/Socialist savages, but I think no such place exists and that there is no such desperate struggle, other than among Conservatives and Christians.
I have received, sadly, no invitation in response.
YHAOS: We are discussing, among other things, state control of science education at the elementary and secondary level
Spirited: The central concern of mind-control is control of conscience. This is due to the fact that all law-—including ‘He made them man and woman’— is grounded in transcendent morality originating with either the gods, as was the case with the ancients or with the supernatural living God.
Transcendent morality is of the spirit, either of the naturalistic gods as the pagans thought or of the supernatural Spirit of God. And man’s conscience is of his soul/spirit, meaning it is neither a movement of chemicals nor neurological predispositions as Gnostic antitheists teach.
Marxist Communists were both Gnostic Manicheans and positivists, which means that science and by extension naturalism (which excludes the supernatural) is the only source of knowledge. The Soviet Union thus represents an attempt by Gnostic positivist antitheists to efface the image and voice of God from man and his conscience.
But can man who is without doubt both Dr. Jekyl and evil Mister Hyde take hold of such enormous power (Tolkien’s One Ring) without falling into great evil? The witness of the Soviet Union where from 60,000,000-100,000,000 men, women, and children were liquidated literally screams “no!”
As you pointed out, the secular state controls science education, meaning that just as was the case in the Soviet Union, science “is the only source of knowledge” and the only people capable of “knowing” and/or correctly interpreting “knowledge” are Gnostic adepts occupying positions of power and influence throughout our culture, meaning from Hollywood to academia, the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, etc.
Knowledge is power. And as a wise man once noted, power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. The “One Ring” fell into the eagerly outstretched hands of Marxists with the result of incomprehensible evil. No less than that will happen here if and when absolute power falls into the outstretched hands of our own Gnostic “elitists.”
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.