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.
Ah, again with assigning motive to me. Do you feel that you need to do that to establish a position?
One question. How is the scientific method able to reproduce extrapolations made back into unobserved time and unobservable assumed evolutionary events?
"All anti-scientists have a motivation."
And scientists don't? LOL!
"That is the only motivation that makes sense within the context of creationism-based anti-science. If you didn't feel that scientific fact is a threat to your religion, you wouldn't be arguing so strenuously against it."
Again with implying that you know my motivations. How often should I tell you that you have no idea what my motivations are before you stop assigning motive to me? Hmmm?
"If logical deductions are not a valid part of scientific method, then not only must we throw away science, but we should ditch criminal law, as well."
So you equate science with criminal law? Do you realize how subjective criminal law is? You do realize that police are allowed to lie to suspects to gain confessions and prosecutors withhold evidence if the right questions aren't asked (Ted Stevens' trial as the most recent example). Are scientists likewise allowed to lie to the public and withhold evidence that doesn't support the story they want the public to believe? I don't think you meant to be quite so honest in your comparison, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
"You mean, like testing the supposition that events outlined in Genesis actually took place as described--that circa 6000 years ago, God spoke and the entire universe sprang into existence? That God spoke again, and all of the plants and animals sprang fully formed from the soil? That God took a bit more of the soil and formed a man, and took a rib from that man to make his nearly identical twin sister? Please, you tell me, because I have no idea."
By admitting that extrapolations into unobserved time and unobserved assumed events are equivalent to the Biblical account of creation, you have admitted the philosophical and religious nature of 'science' (aka philosophical naturalism).
Again, your lack of understanding of the scientific method and flat-out refusal to believe the voluminous evidence of geology, the fossil record, astrophysics, modern biology, and several other scientific disciplines do not make science into a "philosophical position."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Logical deductions are always based on philosophical beliefs.
"People make extrapolations about the most likely sequence of events all the time, without direct observation. Fact of life: we cannot observe every process at all times.
This time we have the logical fallacy of the non sequitur. The fact that people make extrapolations all the time and the fact that we cannot observe every process at all times does not mean that it is 'scientific' to extrapolate back into unobserved time frames and assumed unobserved events to support the philsophical belief in evolution.
Logical deduction =/= philosophy."
Logical deduction is firmly based in a person's philosophy. If I believe that the Easter Bunny leaves candy eggs on Easter morning and I go out and see candy eggs on Sunday morning, I will logically deduce that the Easter Bunny left them. The evolutionary bias in 'science' is as firmly based on philosophy as is belief in the Easter Bunny.