Darwin and Eugenics - the 20th Century Black Death and the secret shame of the 21st Century
I alluded to the connection between Hitler's policies and his belief in the teachings of Charles Darwin in this post - Darwinism...the noble lie, the big lie or both? You decide!
In fact there is no doubt that Darwinism went hand in hand with the brutal tyrannical regimes the 20th Century that based their philosophies on atheistic philosophy that led to socialism/communism/fascism. But before I remind you all of this, I want to remind you of an obvious scientific truth that Darwinists hate to admit: Presumptions are not science. I will list three presumptions that are common in Origins Science:
1) I expect to find a supernatural force, a God, who made the Universe and all within it.
2) I may or may not find a supernatural force is the best explanation for the Universe and all within it.
3) I will not find nor will I consider a supernatural force as an explanation for the Universe and all within it.
I've got news for you...these are worldviews! Not one of these views is any more or less scientific than the other. One massive gigantic big lie is the idea that science belongs to Materialism. No, that is religion! Belief in natural causes only is a philosophical or shall we say a religious point of view, just like belief in a Creator God is a religious point of view.
Everybody has to start at point 1, 2 or 3!
I will not let Darwinists weasel out of this. You don't get to take your religion and co-opt science away from the rest of us. You have brainwashed and bullied and BS'd your way into a position of power so that you can censor the information taught to school children and control the content of most television and other media outlets but you CANNOT LEGISLATE AGAINST OR SHUT UP THE TRUTH. Truth has this funny way of coming out on top no matter who promotes it and who opposes it. Truth eventually wins in science.
Yeah, right! The check is in the mail...I WILL respect you in the morning...I did NOT have sex with that woman...and Richard Dawkins is an expert. Darwinism is idiotic. It is not scientific in the least! After years of hearing the best that Darwinist commenters can come up with I can say that clearly they can be indoctrinated to keep repeating the same canards but they cannot defend them, they just laugh and call names and barf out more of the same old lies about the fossil record and the rock layers and the makeup of organisms while hiding their eyes concerning life and information and the formation of the Universe. Darwinists weave together a string of fairy tales and no one who thinks critically should pay the slightest attention to their claims. I promise you that Darwinism cannot last as the ruling paradigm because it flies in the face of evidence. Every fossil found with flesh rather than bone, every new complexity found in the structure and behavior of organisms, every new chemical discovery associated with the processes of life debunks Darwinism over and over again. But that isn't bad enough...
DARWINISM IS A PLAGUE ON HUMANITY
Macroevolution has never been observed and it is not supported by the evidence. But Darwinism has been a black plague of death on mankind for the last 100 years, leading people like Stalin and Mao and of course Hitler to slaughter millions of innocents and, in the spirit of Margaret Sanger, government-sponsored baby murdering is legal all around the globe.
CultureWatch
Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day…Euthanasia and the Nazis: Never Again
With euthanasia back on to the agenda thanks to the pro-death Greens, we need to recall the lessons of history. Without remembering the past we will be doomed to repeat its mistakes. And one of the biggest mistakes in human history was the complicity of the medical community in the Nazi euthanasia programs.Numerous important books have appeared in the recent past documenting how doctors, scientists and all sort of other respected professionals became heavily involved in the Nazi death machine. I list below some key books and articles which we all need to be familiar with.
Here I simply wish to highlight in a very brief and outline form, the Nazi euthanasia program. And the first and perhaps most important fact to point out is euthanasia in Germany preceded and led relentlessly to the Final Solution. Both were part of a continuum.
Indeed, we need to trace the ideological roots of Nazism back into history, with the writings of Darwin and his cousin Galton (who coined the term ‘eugenics’) leading the way. But German thinkers closer to the time of the Nazis also played a major role.
Chief among them would be Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding who in 1920 released their influential book, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens (The Authorization of the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life). The book spoke of the “incurable feebleminded” who should be killed.
State-sponsored euthanasia was called for, with the idea that many humans had to be excluded from those deserving the right to life. Other writings appeared, with much discussion especially in the German medical community. All this helped pave the way for the Nazi programs when they came into power in, As Henry Friedlander says in the opening of his important book, The Origins of Nazi Genocide, “Nazi genocide did not take place in a vacuum. Genocide was only the most radical method of excluding groups of human beings from the German national community. The policy of exclusion followed and drew upon more than fifty years of scientific opposition to the equality of man.”
His massive 400-page volume (300 pages of text with 100 pages of reference material) goes into minute detail about the Nazi euthanasia program, and the complicity of scientists and doctors. He makes it quite clear that there was a very real continuum between the German euthanasia program – aided and abetted by the medical community – and the Final Solution.
He concludes his valuable study with these words: “Auschwitz was only the last, most perfect Nazi killing center. The entire killing enterprise had started in January 1940 with the murder of the most helpless human beings, institutionalized handicapped patients, had expanded in 1941 to include Jews and Gypsies, and had by 1945 cost the lives of at least 6 million men, women, and children.”
Michael Burleigh also has written extensively on these matters. His celebrated 1994 volume, Death and Deliverance, is a very careful and detailed examination of euthanasia in Germany from 1900 to 1945. In 400 pages he makes the general case that “the ‘euthanasia’ programme and the Holocaust are intimately related”.
But more specifically his book “is an attempt to study the relationship between psychiatric reform, eugenics and government cost-cutting policies during the Weimar Republic and Nazi periods”. He documents how such eugenics programs had been widely advanced long before the Nazis came to power.
And he reminds us that Hitler did not accidently stumble upon the euthanasia and eugenics initiatives. Instead, this program “was a carefully planned and covertly executed operation with precisely defined objectives. Those responsible believed in the necessity of what they were doing.”
And just to bring all this up to date, it is of real interest that Burleigh’s final chapter looks at one popular contemporary proponent of euthanasia, Peter Singer. He rightly points out that just as Binding and Hoche sought to relativise morality through a redefinition of the nature of personhood, so too is Singer today.
Robert Jay Lifton, writing in The Nazi Doctors (1986) carefully traces the complicity of the medical community in the Nazi program. He says that at the heart their involvement was “the transformation of the physician – of the medical enterprise itself – from healer to killer”.
He interviewed a number of these medical personnel, as well as some surviving Auschwitz prisoners. Together the information gleaned from these interviews makes for chilling reading. He discovered that for those doctors and other non-medical professionals involved, they formed a vital and necessary step to wholesale genocide.
Without the help of these individuals, and “the destruction of the boundary between healing and killing,” the Nazi death machine would have been less likely to succeed. He argues that sadism and viciousness alone cannot account for what happened – what was needed was a “bureaucracy of killing”.
Some five hundred pages are given over to documenting the Nazi doctors. “In sum,” he says, “we may say that doctors were given much of the responsibility for the murderous ecology of Auschwitz – the choosing of victims, the carrying through of the physical and psychological mechanics of killing, and the balancing of killing and work functions in the camp.”
These and other studies make it quite clear than when medicine moves from its role of healing to a role of killing, such atrocities as what took place 70 years ago are not hard to understand, and are likely to recur. And sadly we have the same temptation today. Doctors are now being asked to add killing to their job description.
As has been said so many times before, we must all learn from the lessons of history, or we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. With so many calls for euthanasia now being made, more than ever we must revisit recent history so that its atrocities can be avoided.
For further reading:
Books
Annas, George and Michael Grodin, eds., The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Baumslag, Naomi, Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus. Praeger Publishers, 2005.
Brennan, William, Medical Holocaust I: Exterminative Medicine in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America. Nordland, 1980.
Burleigh, Michael, Death and Deliverance: ‘Euthanasia’ in Germany 1900-1945. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Friedlander, Henry, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. The University of North Carolina Press, 1995.
Gallagher, Hugh Gregory, By Trust Betrayed: Patients, Physicians and the License to Kill in the Third Reich. Henry Holt, 1990.
Hoedeman, Paul, Hitler or Hippocrates: Medical Experiments and Euthanasia in the Third Reich. Book Guild, 1991.
Kater, Michael, Doctors under Hitler. The University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
Lifton, Robert Jay, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. Basic Books, 1986.
Michalczyk, John, ed., Medicine, Ethics, and the Third Reich. Sheen & Ward, 1994.
Muller-Hill, Benno, Murderous Science. Oxford University Press, 1988.
Pichot, Andre, Pure Society: From Darwin to Hitler. Verso, 2009.
Proctor, Robert, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Harvard University Press, 1988.
Sereny, Gitta, Into Darkness: From Mercy Killing to Mass Murder. McGraw-Hill, 1974.
Spitz, Vivien, Doctors from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans. Sentient Publications, 2005.
Weikart, Richard, From Darwin to Hitler. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Weikart, Richard, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Articles
Alexander, Leo, “Medical Science Under Dictatorship,” New England Journal of Medicine, 14 July 1949, pp. 39-47.
Brown, Harold O.J., “Euthanasia: Lessons from Nazism,” Human Life Review, 13, March 1987, pp. 88-99.
Burleigh, Michael, “Euthanasia and the Third Reich,” History Today, February 1990, pp. 11-16.
Neuhaus, Richard John, “The Way They Were, the Way We Are: Bioethics and the Holocaust,” First Things, March 1990, pp. 31-37.
Pellegrino, Edmund, “The Nazi Doctors and Nuremberg: Some Moral Lessons Revisited,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 15 August 1997, Vol. 127 Is. 4, pp. 307-308.
~
Darwin and Hitler...
"Evolution has produced classes of people who are in various stages of development from ape to man?
Darwin believed it. From the Descent of Man (1874) : "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Darwin believed it. From the Descent of Man (1874) : "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Darwin believed it. Galton believed it. Hitler believed it. They must therefore take their place in the roll call of the most evil men in human history. Do not be easily led into following in their footsteps!
Eugenics … death of the defenceless
The legacy of Darwin’s cousin Galton
Few ideas have done more harm to the human race in the last 120 years than those of Sir Francis Galton. He founded the evolutionary pseudo-science of eugenics. Today, ethnic cleansing, the use of abortion to eliminate ‘defective’ unborn babies, infanticide, euthanasia, and the harvesting of unborn babies for research purposes all have a common foundation in the survival-of-the-fittest theory of eugenics. So who was Galton, what is eugenics, and how has it harmed humanity?
Francis Galton
Photos Darwin by TFE Graphics, Hitler and Galton by Wikipedia.org
As a child, he had learned the alphabet by 18 months, was reading by age 2½, memorizing poetry by five, and discussing the Iliad at six.1 In 1840, he began studies at Cambridge University in medicine and then in mathematics, but, due to a nervous breakdown, succeeded in gaining only a modest B.A. degree, in January 1844.2 When his father died that same year, he inherited such a fortune that he never again needed to work for a living.
This gave the wealthy young Galton free time not only for ‘amusement’, but also to dabble in a number of fields, including exploration of large areas of South West Africa, his reports of which gained him membership of the Royal Geographic Society in 1853, and three years later of the Royal Society. In that year, Galton married Louisa Butler, whose father had been Headmaster at Harrow School.
As an amateur scientist of boundless curiosity and energy, he went on to write some 14 books and over 200 papers.3 His inventions included the ‘silent’ dog whistle, a teletype printer; and various instruments and techniques for measuring human intelligence and body parts; and he invented the weather map and discovered the existence of anticyclones.
Interaction with Charles Darwin
The publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 was undoubtedly a turning point in Galton’s life. In 1869 he wrote to Darwin, ‘[T]he appearance of your Origin of Species formed a real crisis in my life; your book drove away the constraint of my old superstition [i.e. religious arguments based on design] as if it had been a nightmare and was the first to give me freedom of thought.’4From Nott, J.C. and Gliddon, G.R., Indigenous Races of the Earth, J.B. Libbincott, Philadelphia, USA, 1868.  Pseudoscientific illustration of alleged evolution of human ‘races’. An allegedly ‘scientific’ illustration from 1868 showing that blacks were less evolved than whites by suggesting similarities with a chimpanzee. Even the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould commented that the chimpanzee skull is falsely enlarged and the ‘negro’ jaw falsely extended to suggest that ‘negros’ rank even lower than apes. This demonstration was not from racist or ‘fringe’ literature but from one of the leading scientific textbooks of its time. Today’s militant evolutionists like to conveniently evade the social implications of their ideas, but history demonstrates otherwise. |
Galton’s views left no room for the existence of a human soul, the grace of God in the human heart, human freedom to choose to be different, or even for the dignity of the individual. In his first published article on this subject, in 1865,7 ‘He denied … that man’s rational faculties are a gift to him from God; he denied that mankind has been cursed with sinfulness since the day of Adam and Eve’; and he viewed religious sentiments as ‘nothing more than evolutionary devices to insure the survival of the human species.’8
Concerning the sense of original sin, he wrote that ‘[this] would show, according to my theory, not that man was fallen from a high estate, but that he was rapidly rising from a low one … and that after myriads of years of barbarism, our race has but very recently grown to be civilized and religious.’9
In Hereditary Genius (1869), Galton enlarged on all these ideas and proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. When Charles Darwin read this book, he wrote to Galton, ‘You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work … .’5 Galton’s ideas undoubtedly helped him extend his evolution theory to man. Darwin did not mention Galton in his Origin, but referred to him no less than 11 times in his Descent of Man (1871).
Three International Eugenics Congresses were held in 1912, 1921 and 1932, with eugenics activists attending from Britain, the USA, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Mauritius, Kenya and South Africa. Notables who supported the ideas pre–World War II included Winston Churchill, economist John Maynard Keynes, science fiction writer H.G. Wells10 and US Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. Galton received the Huxley Medal from the Anthropological Institute in 1901, the Darwin Medal from the Royal Society in 1902, the Darwin–Wallace Medal from the Linnaean Society in 1908, and honorary degrees from Cambridge and Oxford Universities; he was knighted in 1909. Despite these ‘honours’, in life Galton was not his own best advocate for his theories. He had many long-lasting bouts of illness, and notwithstanding his and his wife’s good intellectual pedigrees, they produced no children of their own to carry on his name and heritage. After his death in 1911, his will provided for the funding of a Chair of Eugenics and the Galton Eugenics Laboratory at the University of London.
Eugenics in action
The concept of improving the physical and mental characteristics of the human race may seem admirable at first glance. However, historically the method of achieving it has involved not just increasing the birthrate of the ‘fit’ by selected parenthood (‘positive eugenics’), but also reducing the birthrate of those people thought to impair such improvement, the ‘unfit’ (‘negative eugenics’).11
For example, by 1913, one-third (and from the 1920s on, more than half)12 of the US States had laws allowing for the compulsory sterilization of those held in custody who were deemed to be ‘unfit’. This resulted in the forced sterilization of some 70,000 victims, including criminals, the mentally retarded, drug addicts, paupers, the blind, the deaf, and people with epilepsy, TB or syphilis. Over 8,000 procedures were done at the one city of Lynchburg, Virginia,13 and isolated instances continued into the 1970s.14,15
About 60,000 Swedish citizens were similarly treated between 1935 and 1976, and there were similar practices in Norway and Canada.16
In Germany in 1933, Hitler’s government ordered the compulsory sterilization of all German citizens with ‘undesirable’ handicaps, not just those held in custody or in institutions. This was to prevent ‘contamination’ of Hitler’s ‘superior German race’ through intermarriage.
Then from 1938 to 1945, this surgical treatment of such ‘useless eaters’ was superseded by a more comprehensive solution—the eager genocide, by Hitler’s Nazis, of over 11 million people considered to be subhuman or unworthy of life, as is authenticated and documented by the Nuremberg Trials records. Those killed included Jews, evangelical Christians,17 blacks, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, amputees and mental patients.
This was nothing other than rampant Darwinism—the elimination of millions of human beings branded ‘unfit/inferior’ by, and for the benefit of, those who regarded themselves as being ‘fit/superior’.
The core idea of Darwinism is selection.18 The Nazis believed that they must direct the process of selection to advance the German race.19 Galton’s naïve vision of a ‘eugenics utopia’ had mutated into the Nazi nightmare of murderous ethnic cleansing.
Sadly, ideas of racial superiority and eugenics did not die with Hitler’s regime. David Duke, America’s infamous anti-black and anti-Jew racist, developed his views from reading the eugenicist writings of Galton, H.G. Wells, Sir Arthur Keith and others, as well as the early writings of modern sociobiologists such as Harvard’s E.O. Wilson.20
Eugenics in the 21st century.
Following World War II, eugenics became a ‘dirty word’. Eugenicists now called themselves ‘population scientists’, ‘human geneticists’, ‘family politicians’, etc. Journals were renamed. Annals of Eugenics became Annals of Human Genetics, and Eugenics Quarterly became the Journal of Social Biology.21 However today, some 60 years after the Holocaust, the murderous concept that Galton’s eugenics spawned is once again alive and flourishing, and wearing a lab-coat of medical respectability.Doctors now routinely destroy humans, who were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, as well as in fetal/embryonic stem-cell research.
A. Abortion
According to the UK’s Daily Mail, ‘women are increasingly eliminating their unborn children because of non life-threatening deformities such as deformed feet or cleft lips and palates’, and ‘more Down’s Syndrome babies are now killed than are allowed to be born.’22 Dr Jacqueline Laing of London’s Metropolitan University commented, ‘These figures are symptomatic of a eugenic trend of the consumerist society hell-bent on obliterating deformity.’ ‘This is straightforward eugenics,’ said UK’s Life Trustee, Nuala Scarisbrick. ‘The message is being sent out to disabled people that they should not have been born. It is appalling and abhorrent.’22
Globally, there are an estimated 50 million abortions each year. That’s one abortion for every three live births, so any child in the womb, on average, worldwide, has a one in four chance of being deliberately killed.23
B. Infanticide
China is famous for its coercive one-child-per-family policy. In practice, most families want a boy, so if a girl is born, she can be at risk. Sometimes the same grisly principle is followed, but before birth. In India, it’s common to find out the sex of the baby, and a vast majority of abortions are of girl babies. It makes the feminist support of abortion distressingly ironic.
And disabled babies are at risk as well. ‘Ethicist’ Peter Singer has advocated legalization of infanticide to a certain age. He writes: ‘[K]illing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.’24
C. Euthanasia
In May 2001, Holland became the first country to legalize euthanasia, with the law coming into effect from January 2002. Euthanasia was tolerated in Belgium until May 2002, when it was legalized. It is tolerated in Switzerland, Norway and Columbia.23
Eugenics and the Scopes Monkey Trial1
Photo Bryan College
Clarence Darrow (left) and William Jennings Bryan
This is the book that Darwinists of the day insisted that Scopes had a right to teach!All this is documented by Dr David Menton in the DVD Inherently Wind: a Hollywood History of the Scopes Trial (right).
References and notes
- The 1925 trial in Dayton, Tennessee, USA, of high-school teacher John T. Scopes, charged with violating state law by teaching the theory of evolution.
- Hunter, G., A Civic Biology Presented in Problems, American Book Co., New York, USA, pp. 195–196, 1914.
- Hunter, G., Laboratory Problems in Civic Biology, American Book Co., New York, USA, 1916.
- Ref. 2, pp. 261–265.
Judgment at Nuremberg
Perhaps the most frequently asked question concerning the eugenics-inspired genocide of the Holocaust is: ‘How could it have happened?’ In the 1961 MGM film Judgment at Nuremberg, about the trial of four Nazi war criminals, judges who had enforced Nazi decrees,1 one of the defendants (Judge Ernst Janning, played by Burt Lancaster) cries out to Chief Judge Dan Haywood (played by Spencer Tracy): ‘Those people—those millions of people—I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it!’ Haywood’s response was eloquent: ‘It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.’Likewise today, eugenic killing of innocent preborn babies because they are thought to be less than perfect began the first time a doctor consented to kill a handicapped child in the womb. The rest is history.
- Based on the third Nuremberg Trial (1947), also called the ‘Judges’ Trial’ because it tried Nazi judges and prosecutors for imposing the Nazi ‘racial purity’ programme through the eugenic and racial laws. There were a total of 13 Nuremberg Trials.
The photograph (above right) comes from the first Nuremberg Trial (1945–6), the most famous and significant of them because it tried the main German leaders.
Front row (left-to-right): Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel;
Back row: Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel. (Courtesy Wikipedia)"
Charles Darwin’s Eroding Credibility
By Wayne Jackson
During his lifetime (1809-1882), Charles Darwin received many accolades from his scientific contemporaries. What many do not realize, however, is that Darwin was criticized by numerous prominent scientists of his day, and that criticism lingers today — even among some evolutionists.
It is readily acknowledged by historians that for many years the British naturalist was not accepted for induction into the prestigious French Academy of Sciences. For example, in 1872 an attempt was made to get Darwin voted into the Zoological Section of the Academy, but only fifteen out of forty-eight members voted for him. A prominent member of the Academy explained the decision:
“What has closed the door of the academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame — the Origin of Species and still more the Descent of Man — is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body which respects itself cannot encourage” (Ruth Moore, Charles Darwin, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, p. 196).Six years later, the tide of opinion had turned, and Darwin was elected into the Botanical Section of the Academy. He confessed great surprise, since his initial fame had been made in zoology, not botany. He wrote his friend Asa Gray: “It is rather a good joke that I should be elected to the Botanical Section, as the extent of my knowledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant and a pea a Leguminous one.”
The Academy’s resistance revealed that Darwin’s supposed triumph was neither immediate nor universal. What was true then is equally true today. Many scientists have disputed various elements of Darwin’s theory, and even the man’s integrity.
For example, W.R. Thompson, Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, in his “Introduction” to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, wrote that “the modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which, however plausible are, in the nature of things, unverifiable.” Thompson went on to note that the “success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Dutton: Everyman’s Library, 1956, p. xxii).
One evolutionist at Oxford University conceded that “Darwin was slippery, ? [using] a flexible strategy which is not to be reconciled with even average intellectual integrity” (C.D. Darlington, Darwin’s Place in History, London: Basil Blackwell, 1959, p. 60).
Again, Darlington wrote that Darwin:
bq. “. . . was able to put his ideas across not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue” (“The Origin of Darwinism,” Scientific American, Vol. 201, May 1959, p. 66).
More recently, two of Great Britain’s prominent scientists declared:
“The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner” (Sir Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 97).William Paley, the British philosopher/theologian, argued for the existence of God on the basis of the design that is so apparent in the universe.
It is unfortunate that over the years there has been such a hysterical stampede to accept the philosophy of Charles Darwin, simply on the superficial basis of the reputation of the man. Most people have never even carefully examined the theory, thus discovering how void of evidence it is.
~
credit
Unfortunate is not strong enough! Darwinism is a completely preposterous presupposition that has led to nothing but wasted time and resources and the tragic deaths of well over one hundred million people during the 20th Century...and his influence as expressed via Eugenics has led to euthanasia and abortion, procedures in which the strong murder the weak and defenseless because some amateur naturalist wrote a book that has been pretty much completely falsified. But Darwinism lives on, since it is so slippery that it can be explained away from every challenge by the simple fact that it has not a shred of evidence available to it so that it can be pinned down and finally and forever falsified!
You who promote Darwinism are shaking your fists at the Creator God who made you. I will remind you of Daniel Chapter Five...I have spent several years giving you evidence for the concept that God indeed created all things. You have had the opportunity to see that the preponderance of evidence cries out for a Designer who made all things, all life and produced the intelligence and the design we see everywhere and you have had a chance to reconsider and give thanks and glory to the Great God who created this magnificent Universe and seeks to redeem both mankind and the creation itself... Like the King of Babylon, Belshazzar, who saw a disembodied hand write words on the wall before his very eyes and in the presence of over a thousand witnesses during a banquet in which Belshazzar dishonored the vessels stolen from the Temple of God.
Daniel 5:23-30 "Instead, you have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven. You had the goblets from his temple brought to you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines drank wine from them. You praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or understand. But you did not honor the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways. Therefore he sent the hand that wrote the inscription.
“This is the inscription that was written:
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN
“Here is what these words mean:
Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.
Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.
Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”
Then at Belshazzar’s command, Daniel was clothed in purple, a gold chain was placed around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom. That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two."
You have heard the phrase "I see the writing on the wall?" This chapter of Daniel is where it comes from and it is written to you as well. God and Truth are not erased by opinion polls or idiotic court decisions or the opinions of atheistic narcissists. I have shown you the truth and the world has seen how Darwinism has led to the most beastly and evil of actions - murder, mutilation, torture, genocide, infanticide. How can you in good conscience dare to say that Darwinism has not been an evil influence on mankind and was part and parcel of the Nazi Holocaust? Only if you have no moral code can you do so. How can you say that Darwinism explains the world around you? Only if you hide your eyes, close your mouth and cover your ears to the evidence of information and design...
