What are the true implications of Darwinism/Humanism? History, Our Founding Fathers and Kim Sandy speak the truth. Will you hear it?
The testimony of history...Oh,
what foolishness is associated with Darwinism! The evil and depravity
of evolution applied to society destroys it. Darwinism is the
philosophy that rewards pride and sexual deviancy and the coveting of
the property of others. What is Communism/Socialism but the taking of
goods from the productive to give them to the unproductive? It rewards
laziness and ignorance. It promotes tyrants. It depends upon ignorance
and greed. There is a world of Al Gores and Al Sharptons pretending
to care about others while simply growing their own bank accounts. Can
you name one good thing Jesse Jackson, Jr has accomplished? Other than
publicly disdaining the victims of Benghazi and standing for every
stupid and idiotic Communist agenda out there, what good is Hilary
Clinton? Oh, yes, there are so many politicians who claim to care for
the poor and needy while living like kings and queens on YOUR money.
"Progressive" Democrats
and RINOs want to give citizenship to illegal aliens because they
expect the millions of new and uneducated voters will vote for them as
they establish a new society that is modeled on the old Soviet Union.
The dumber the voters, the more likely they fall for the sizzle and
fail to inspect the steak (which turns out to be baloney)!
"Progressive" Democrats and RINOs support baby-murdering as a "right" of the mother to "choose" to kill our most innocent and helpless citizens. How different is that from Hitler's desire to "choose" to kill Jews and Christians and political enemies and handicapped people?
"Progressive" Democrats and RINOs support the oxymoron that is "gay marriage" while
spitting in the face of God and the tradition and religious sacrament
of the joining of man and woman established from the very first couple
and on down through history. They can pass all the laws and make all
the legal proclamations they want, two members of the same sex can no
more marry than they can reproduce! It is an abomination and it is
only the tip of an evil iceberg. Pedophiles are waiting to push for
the "right" to "marry" children and then eventually people will try to call a three-way relationship a "marriage" and who can say you cannot "marry" a horse or a dog or a dead body?
"Progressive" thinking
is actually regressive. This kind of immorality dates from long ago,
and God flooded the entire planet once to stop it. Another time God
rained fire and brimstone down on an area (Sodom and Gomorrah) to put an
end to it. He sent his people to wipe out such a depraved society
when the Children of Israel marched into Canaan. But they did not do
this, they let some of the people live and thereby did not wipe out all
the baby-murderers and temple prostitutes and other practitioners of
evil. Therefore the Jews were eventually corrupted, conquered and
carried away to Babylon. The powerful empire of Israel ruled by King
Solomon became a wasteland that God would eventually allow His people to
come back and rebuild as a shadow of its former glory.
Jerusalem
would be rebuilt but Israel would never be powerful again and would
eventually be overrun...until the Balfour Declaration of 1917 eventually
led to the establishment of a new nation of Israel. But this Israel
is a small island of freedom surrounded by bloodthirsty Islamic enemies.
As America throws away its goodness and greatness, Israel realizes it
is losing a valuable ally and we may see a nuclear war begin in the
Middle East. Barack Obama may like blowing things and people up with
drones, but he never targets the real enemies. He even made the killing
of Osama Bin Laden into a political victory at the expense of actual
tactical and informational advantages and left the poor Pakistani doctor who clued us in to be imprisoned and tortured and probably eventually killed in a Pakistani jail. By leaking the identity of Seal Team Six, he signed death warrants for
many of those men as well. Anyone in the world of espionage knows that
information you glean that the enemy doesn't know you have is the most
valuable and that the hardest thing to develop is human intelligence
agents. Obama gave away the intelligence advantage and threw our brave
doctor to the dogs! Yes, that is the kind of thing a Christian would
never do. Just exactly what Barack Obama is, other than a man who
despises America and loves to live like a king, only God knows. But he
has harmed the United States more than 50 Hurricane Katrinas could
accomplish, for he has helped degrade our basic morality, our credit
rating, our ability to defend and secure our borders and our reputation
with our allies, those we still have.
Islamoterrorists
with nuclear weaponry? The USA is letting it happen without doing
anything but waving hands and producing hot air. The UN is more
concerned about finding ways to keep Third World countries from becoming
developed enough to compete with the "haves" while finding ways to skim riches from aid to poorer nations and promoting junk science like Anthropic Global Warming.
Rome
did not fall because of bread and circuses. It fell because of the
decline of the entire society. All forms of tyranny eventually fail but
mankind keeps establishing new governments with powerful central
authority and a large percentage of the population on the government
dole and seemingly happy with a lazy poverty. Is this what America
will become? Russia is now a land of impoverished people drowning their
sorrows in vodka, selling their bodies for the money to live or
involved in crime and various combinations thereof. Some of the most
serious internet trojan/worm/virus/malware attacks are the result of
organized crime gangs in the former Soviet Union area of the world,
setting up and taking down servers and robbing you without your
awareness. Your computer may be part of a botnet and you have no idea
it is being commandeered and utilized...you just know it got slower
somehow and, unless you are computer-savvy, will just purchase useless
stuff you saw advertised on television to try to fix what you do not
even know is not broken but rather stolen!
Hitler WAS a Darwinist, a Socialist/Fascist, a Tyrant and maniacally drunk on power. But as that page demonstrates, the concept of evolution was crucial to the philosophy of Hitler and his cronies:
In
America, we called it Eugnenics (the ancestor of Planned Parenthood, by
the way). Yes, the 20th Century was one of mass murders, atrocities,
tyranny, wars and the popularization of Darwinism.
The shameful history of eugenics in America
Excerpt from- BETTER FOR ALL THE WORLD: THE SECRET HISTORY OF FORCED STERILIZATION AND AMERICA’S QUEST FOR RACIAL PURITY
By Harry Bruinius
REVIEWED BY CLAUDE R. MARX
Stephen
King, meet your nonfiction counterpart. Some of the scariest things
that one can read these days come straight from the history books,
including this comprehensive look at the eugenics/racial purity
movement.
Populated
with characters from prominent American families and based on research
from top-flight universities, the movement to mandate forced
sterilization of those considered mentally inferior was a significant
force in the United States during much of first half of the 20th
century. It is a complicated story, but in the hands of Harry Bruinius, “Better for All The World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America’s Quest for Racial Purity” reads like an engaging, though eerie, novel.
Mr.
Bruinius traces the movement from its intellectual origins in 19th-
century Britain — where its founder was a cousin of Charles Darwin— to a
woman still living in Colorado who was involuntarily sterilized while
in a state mental institution.
Based
on questionable scientific data, the movement caught on with Americans
who who were worried that those of lesser intelligence would harm the
nation’s gene pool by reproducing.
The
book’s title comes from an opinion by Supreme Court Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes upholding a Virginia law that mandated sterilization of
those deemed intellectually and morally inferior.
“It
is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate
offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility,
society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their
kind,’ Mr. Holmes wrote in Buck vs. Bell in 1927.
Mr.
Bruinius, a journalism professor at Hunter College in New York City, is
clearly quite aghast at the movement (which also fueled racial quotas
and other prejudicial acts) and its popularity. He goes to great lengths
to explain the intellectual and social contexts in which it thrived. He
cites the increase in immigrants and the changing dynamics that these
newcomers created as helping fuel concerns among those from old Yankee
stock. Worries about the financial and social costs to society in caring
for the mentally challenged also caused some to favor forced
sterilization.
Such
ideas helped inspire many of the policies that were prevalent in Nazi
Germany, including killing people who were not part of the “master race’ and the Nuremberg Laws, which stripped Jews of citizenship and outlawed marriage between the races.
In
America, forced sterilizations were by no means a fringe movement. At
one point, 30 states had forced sterilization laws and some others made
use of the practice when deemed necessary for “medical reasons.’ Some
prominent people, many of whom were notable progressives like Theodore
Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood,
endorsed the idea. Among its most prominent opponents were
fundamentalist Christians and Roman Catholics...
America, you did not start out this way...
Our Founding Fathers were ALL men of faith. From this website:
There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who
participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as
Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding
Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and
signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's
political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.
There were 95 Senators and Representatives in
the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of
signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the
Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates,
and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal
Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:
- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
The
religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below.
Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who
could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the
major figures that people generally think of in this context are
included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock,
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers
# of
Founding
Fathers
% of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican
88
54.7%
Presbyterian
30
18.6%
Congregationalist
27
16.8%
Quaker
7
4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed
6
3.7%
Lutheran
5
3.1%
Catholic
3
1.9%
Huguenot
3
1.9%
Unitarian
3
1.9%
Methodist
2
1.2%
Calvinist
1
0.6%
TOTAL
204
NOTES: The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.
The
21st Century has become the era of self-indulgent ignorance. Our
nation is rotting like meat left out for flies to inject their eggs and
maggots will soon be crawling out everywhere. Our Founding Fathers were
right and we are wrong. For example:
John Adams
The
people in America have now the best opportunity and the greatest trust
in their hands that Providence ever committed to so small a number ...
if they betray their trust, their guilt will merit even greater
punishment than other nations have suffered, and the indignation of Heaven ...
— 1787
We
have no government armed with the power capable of contending with
human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns ...
An
appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we
shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides
over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong
alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the
price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me
death.
It
cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation
was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious,
but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of
other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.
The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.
— Virginia Convention on ratification of the Constitution
Providence
has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty
as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select
and prefer Christians for their rulers.
The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.
— 1774
The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate ... the minds of the people at large, and
more especially, to give them knowledge of those facts which history
exhibits, that they may ... know ambition under all it shapes, and ...
exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.
— 1779
History,
by apprising the people of the past, will enable them to judge of the
future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other
nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of
men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may
assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.
— 1782
The
boys of the rising generation are to be the men of the next, and the
sole guardians of the principles we deliver over to them.
— 1810
Unless the mass [of people] retains sufficient control over those intrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression ...
— 1812
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Excerpt from- BETTER FOR ALL THE WORLD: THE SECRET HISTORY OF FORCED STERILIZATION AND AMERICA’S QUEST FOR RACIAL PURITY
By Harry Bruinius
REVIEWED BY CLAUDE R. MARX
Stephen
King, meet your nonfiction counterpart. Some of the scariest things
that one can read these days come straight from the history books,
including this comprehensive look at the eugenics/racial purity
movement.
Populated
with characters from prominent American families and based on research
from top-flight universities, the movement to mandate forced
sterilization of those considered mentally inferior was a significant
force in the United States during much of first half of the 20th
century. It is a complicated story, but in the hands of Harry Bruinius, “Better for All The World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America’s Quest for Racial Purity” reads like an engaging, though eerie, novel.
Mr.
Bruinius traces the movement from its intellectual origins in 19th-
century Britain — where its founder was a cousin of Charles Darwin— to a
woman still living in Colorado who was involuntarily sterilized while
in a state mental institution.
Based
on questionable scientific data, the movement caught on with Americans
who who were worried that those of lesser intelligence would harm the
nation’s gene pool by reproducing.
The
book’s title comes from an opinion by Supreme Court Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes upholding a Virginia law that mandated sterilization of
those deemed intellectually and morally inferior.
“It
is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate
offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility,
society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their
kind,’ Mr. Holmes wrote in Buck vs. Bell in 1927.
Mr.
Bruinius, a journalism professor at Hunter College in New York City, is
clearly quite aghast at the movement (which also fueled racial quotas
and other prejudicial acts) and its popularity. He goes to great lengths
to explain the intellectual and social contexts in which it thrived. He
cites the increase in immigrants and the changing dynamics that these
newcomers created as helping fuel concerns among those from old Yankee
stock. Worries about the financial and social costs to society in caring
for the mentally challenged also caused some to favor forced
sterilization.
Such
ideas helped inspire many of the policies that were prevalent in Nazi
Germany, including killing people who were not part of the “master race’ and the Nuremberg Laws, which stripped Jews of citizenship and outlawed marriage between the races.
In
America, forced sterilizations were by no means a fringe movement. At
one point, 30 states had forced sterilization laws and some others made
use of the practice when deemed necessary for “medical reasons.’ Some
prominent people, many of whom were notable progressives like Theodore
Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood,
endorsed the idea. Among its most prominent opponents were
fundamentalist Christians and Roman Catholics...
Our Founding Fathers were ALL men of faith. From this website:
There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who
participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as
Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding
Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and
signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's
political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.
There were 95 Senators and Representatives in
the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of
signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the
Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates,
and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal
Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:
- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
The
religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below.
Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who
could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the
major figures that people generally think of in this context are
included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock,
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers
|
# of
Founding
Fathers
|
% of
Founding
Fathers
|
|---|---|---|
Episcopalian/Anglican
|
88
|
54.7%
|
Presbyterian
|
30
|
18.6%
|
Congregationalist
|
27
|
16.8%
|
Quaker
|
7
|
4.3%
|
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed
|
6
|
3.7%
|
Lutheran
|
5
|
3.1%
|
Catholic
|
3
|
1.9%
|
Huguenot
|
3
|
1.9%
|
Unitarian
|
3
|
1.9%
|
Methodist
|
2
|
1.2%
|
Calvinist
|
1
|
0.6%
|
TOTAL
|
204
|
NOTES: The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.
The
21st Century has become the era of self-indulgent ignorance. Our
nation is rotting like meat left out for flies to inject their eggs and
maggots will soon be crawling out everywhere. Our Founding Fathers were
right and we are wrong. For example:
John Adams
The
people in America have now the best opportunity and the greatest trust
in their hands that Providence ever committed to so small a number ...
if they betray their trust, their guilt will merit even greater
punishment than other nations have suffered, and the indignation of Heaven ...
— 1787
We
have no government armed with the power capable of contending with
human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns ...
An
appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we
shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides
over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong
alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the
price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me
death.
It
cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation
was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious,
but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of
other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.
The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.
— Virginia Convention on ratification of the Constitution
Providence
has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty
as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select
and prefer Christians for their rulers.
The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.
— 1774
The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate ... the minds of the people at large, and
more especially, to give them knowledge of those facts which history
exhibits, that they may ... know ambition under all it shapes, and ...
exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.
— 1779
History,
by apprising the people of the past, will enable them to judge of the
future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other
nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of
men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may
assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.
— 1782
The
boys of the rising generation are to be the men of the next, and the
sole guardians of the principles we deliver over to them.
— 1810
Unless the mass [of people] retains sufficient control over those intrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression ...
— 1812
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Proverbs 16:18
English Standard Version (ESV)
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
English Standard Version (ESV)
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
The testimony of Kim Sandy:
The Paradox of Man
“Know
then, proud man, what a paradox you are to yourself. Be humble,
impotent reason! Be silent, feeble nature! Learn that man infinitely
transcends man, hear from your master your true condition, which is
unknown to you.” Blaise Pascal, Pensees
“Know
then, proud man, what a paradox you are to yourself. Be humble,
impotent reason! Be silent, feeble nature! Learn that man infinitely
transcends man, hear from your master your true condition, which is
unknown to you.” Blaise Pascal, Pensees
Saturday, 22 June 2013
Enemies of Evolution
Having
previously studied for an honours degree in English Literature, and
being a lover of books, I had come across Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World,
and his ideas, but until recently I had never heard of his brother
Julian Huxley. It turns out that Julian was quite the academic. He was
the grandson of Thomas Huxley, who was nicknamed "Darwin's Bulldog" for
his ferocious support of the theory of evolution and I imagine it was
at his grandfather's knee that Julian first began to absorb evolutionary
ideas. Julian shone brightly. He was educated at Eton College, received
his degree from Oxford University, lectured at Kings College London and
became president of the British Humanist Association... amongst a long
list of other achievements!
Julian Huxley fascinated me for a
while and I started reading some of his work. Initially I was quite
impressed by his thought processes - albeit that he often sounded quite
arrogant. You see, when an atheist denies God, he also denies a moral
absolute and consequently a moral lawgiver. If there is no moral
lawgiver and no moral absolutes then who can say what is right and what
is wrong? Why should we even care about such things? I've seen people
try for some wriggle room on this one, but it’s a major sticking point
in the atheist's argument and often they find themselves 'borrowing' from Christianity when they defend their personal ideas of morality.
The
crux of evolutionary ideology is the survival of the fittest, so if you
are going to follow this thought through to its logical conclusion then
how can rape, murder, theft, adultery, lying and a host of other ‘crimes’ be
wrong when a person is just doing whatever he needs to do to survive or
get ahead? Trampling over other people in order to get what we want
should be the first law of evolution and be essential to our make up.
For example, if I want to be selected for a particular job promotion,
what is to stop me from killing off all the others short-listed for the
position?
When
I was debating this very point recently I was told that since we no
longer live in the cave-man days we no longer have to kill or be killed.
We have a measure of stability in our society and this allows us to to
develop a pack mentality, so that it is no longer about what is good for
the individual, but is now about what is good for the pack - or for
society I presume. This apparently gives us room to care for people, to
have compassion for our fellow human beings and even to show sympathy
and empathy. I genuinely think it is a clever argument, but there is no
denying that sympathy and empathy are enemies to evolution and could
potentially destroy the 'pack' if we lose sight of the 'survival of the fittest' mentality. What would Huxley have to say about this?
Well,
Huxley stood his evolutionary ground whilst promoting his humanist
ideology. He claimed that humanism was a replacement for religion, but
he made no bones about how we should further advance our society and
didn’t shy away from the uglier side of evolution. In 1926 he published a
collection of articles in a book entitled The Stream of Life.
The articles had formerly been broadcast by Huxley over the radio -
this surprises me, because I think it takes some gall to express his
ideology publicly. Huxley told his audience exactly how we could improve
the human race.
"But
what are we to think when pity for suffering individuals leads us not
only to preserve them, but to allow them to reproduce and so not only to
lower the quality of the race, but to produce more suffering in
individuals yet unborn? What is one to think of the misplaced kindness
which, to give an actual recent case, takes an epileptic woman to
hospital to be operated on to remedy sterility; or the sentimentality
which rejoices at the 'happiness', so called, generated by the marriage
of two deaf mutes?"[i]
Here, I think, would be an appropriate time to bring up the actual joy generated by 'the marriage of two deaf mutes' (although I would never choose to use the phrase 'deaf mute'). In the 1960’s a London Newspaper ran an article entitled: ‘Deaf Couple Marry’ which detailed the marriage of my own parents.
My
parents met at a London deaf school where sign language was forbidden
and deaf children who persisted in this deviant language were shunned by
society, because apparently the ‘waving around’ of their hands made them appear mentally ill.
The
education my parents received focused mainly on manual skills and
speech therapy and therefore they left school with barely any education.
My father had a qualification in woodwork and my mother a qualification
in cake decorating. When they married my parents were not allowed to
make their marriage vows to one another in sign language, but instead
had to struggle to speak their vows orally to each other.
Despite their disadvantages they were hard workers and determined to build a good life together. Some years later my parents 'reproduced' two
very healthy hearing children who went on to marry and have hearing
children of their own. Their first grandson, Benjamin grew up adoring
his grandparents and communicating with them in sign language. He was
inspired by the determination and courage with which they faced life.
Today Benjamin is in his 4th year as a medical student at Imperial
College London - one of the top medical schools not only in the UK, but
also in the world. Their second grandson, Joseph 17 is currently
gathering work experience so that he too can study medicine - if this is
what God wills, and guess what their 11 year-old grand-daughter wants
to do? I am not saying that this means our family has more value than
anyone elses, I am merely pointing out that doing away with the ‘undesirables’ is not progressive!
I'd
like to put this real life example to Julian Huxley and ask him how the
marriage and reproduction of my parents actually weakened the human
race and how, in the face of what they have achieved, he can justify his
comments recommending that society should be 'segregating defectives in special institutions' and forcibly sterilising them.’[ii]
Growing
up and studying World War II at school I realised that had my parents
lived in Germany at that time they most likely would have ended up in
the gas chambers since the ‘cleansing’ that Hitler and Nazi Germany practiced was in alignment with Huxley's eugenic ideas. Joe Boot, author of A Time to Search cites historical philosopher John Koster who wrote:
"Darwin
and Huxley's picture of man's place in the universe prepared the way
for the Holocaust...Darwin the scientist directly inspired Nietzsche’s
superman theory and the Nazi corollary that some people were
subhuman...People have to learn to stop thinking of other people as
machines and learn to think of them as men and women possessed of
souls...History doesn't need another one hundred million deaths to prove
that scientific atheism is a form of mental illness.”[iii]
Eugenics is the logical outworking of evolution. I can see why on paper the ideas make sense and might sound like ‘progress’. I can also see why people who argue against this sort of ideology might be considered to be ‘feeble minded’ –
something Huxley and the early proponents of evolution despised but
what you see in the Nazi concentration camps is eugenics in action. The
devaluing of human life flows from the atheist position of rejecting the
teaching of the Bible that tells us that people are made in the image
of God and therefore all life is precious. Instead life is expendable
and killing of the defectives, undesirables and weak is to be applauded.
The Nazi concentration camps brought these ideas into sharp focus and
taught us that such ideas have consequences and these consequences would
frequently come back to haunt us.
My
grandmother, who was not a believer, told me that she was glad she
didn't know that my mother was going to be deaf because if she had she
would have made a terrible mistake and would have aborted her baby as an
'act of kindness'. My grandmother had no time for God, but she had
unwittingly absorbed Darwinian ideas, which she didn’t fully understand
but believed that they gave her license for her atheism. Millions of
other people have hung their atheism on the same ‘respectable peg’ for as Richard Dawkins said, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’[iv]
The
teaching of Christianity is in direct contrast to the harsh demands of
evolution leading to eugenic ideologies and it is no wonder that Hitler
himself rose up to declare:
"I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that ever existed.’[v]
I
find it hard to believe that anyone would claim that Adolf Hitler was a
Christian. I do not deny that he was born a catholic, but it is clear
that Hilter’s intention was to wipe out Christianity.
"Altogether
Hitler’s killing machine murdered 5 million Jews, and 7 million
Christians — a little published fact that caused Jewish historian Max
Dimont to declare that “the world blinded itself to the murder of
Christians” by Nazi Germany.”[vi]
Why?
I
have no doubt that many supporters of evolution do not hold to the
extreme eugenic ideas of the likes of Huxley, or Hitler for that matter,
but I truly believe that for the evolutionist there is not a lot of ‘wriggle room’ here. As Edward Simon said (1983), “I
cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it
engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible.”[vii].
I
believe that the grace of God covered my family and that we are living
proof that Huxley couldn’t have been more wrong – I absolutely do
rejoice over the happiness brought about by the marriage of my wonderful
deaf parents.
© Kim Sandy 2013
[i] Julian Huxley (1926). The Stream of Life, cited by Boot, J. (2002). A Time to Search: Discovering meaning and purpose in life, Eastborne, Kingsway Publications, p.106.
[ii] Ibid., p.106
[iii] John P. Koster, Jr,.The Atheist Syndrome (1989), cited by Boot, J. (2002). A Time to Search: Discovering meaning and purpose in life, Eastborne, Kingsway Publications, p.111
[iv] Dawkins, R. (1989) The Blind Watchmaker, London, Penguin Books (this edition 2006), p.6
[v] Alolf Hitler, cited by Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, p.155.
[vi] Dimont,
Max I (1994) cited by Bergman (2006) in ‘Was Adolf Hitler a Christian: A
common objection to creationism.’ [online] available at
http://www.trueorigin.org/hitler01.asp (last accessed 22nd June 2013).
[vii] Edward Simon, "Another Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248
Picture of Juilian Huxley: The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: his image is in the public domain because
its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European
Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author
plus 70 years.
Having
previously studied for an honours degree in English Literature, and
being a lover of books, I had come across Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World,
and his ideas, but until recently I had never heard of his brother
Julian Huxley. It turns out that Julian was quite the academic. He was
the grandson of Thomas Huxley, who was nicknamed "Darwin's Bulldog" for
his ferocious support of the theory of evolution and I imagine it was
at his grandfather's knee that Julian first began to absorb evolutionary
ideas. Julian shone brightly. He was educated at Eton College, received
his degree from Oxford University, lectured at Kings College London and
became president of the British Humanist Association... amongst a long
list of other achievements!
Julian Huxley fascinated me for a while and I started reading some of his work. Initially I was quite impressed by his thought processes - albeit that he often sounded quite arrogant. You see, when an atheist denies God, he also denies a moral absolute and consequently a moral lawgiver. If there is no moral lawgiver and no moral absolutes then who can say what is right and what is wrong? Why should we even care about such things? I've seen people try for some wriggle room on this one, but it’s a major sticking point in the atheist's argument and often they find themselves 'borrowing' from Christianity when they defend their personal ideas of morality.
The crux of evolutionary ideology is the survival of the fittest, so if you are going to follow this thought through to its logical conclusion then how can rape, murder, theft, adultery, lying and a host of other ‘crimes’ be wrong when a person is just doing whatever he needs to do to survive or get ahead? Trampling over other people in order to get what we want should be the first law of evolution and be essential to our make up. For example, if I want to be selected for a particular job promotion, what is to stop me from killing off all the others short-listed for the position?
Julian Huxley fascinated me for a while and I started reading some of his work. Initially I was quite impressed by his thought processes - albeit that he often sounded quite arrogant. You see, when an atheist denies God, he also denies a moral absolute and consequently a moral lawgiver. If there is no moral lawgiver and no moral absolutes then who can say what is right and what is wrong? Why should we even care about such things? I've seen people try for some wriggle room on this one, but it’s a major sticking point in the atheist's argument and often they find themselves 'borrowing' from Christianity when they defend their personal ideas of morality.
The crux of evolutionary ideology is the survival of the fittest, so if you are going to follow this thought through to its logical conclusion then how can rape, murder, theft, adultery, lying and a host of other ‘crimes’ be wrong when a person is just doing whatever he needs to do to survive or get ahead? Trampling over other people in order to get what we want should be the first law of evolution and be essential to our make up. For example, if I want to be selected for a particular job promotion, what is to stop me from killing off all the others short-listed for the position?
When I was debating this very point recently I was told that since we no longer live in the cave-man days we no longer have to kill or be killed. We have a measure of stability in our society and this allows us to to develop a pack mentality, so that it is no longer about what is good for the individual, but is now about what is good for the pack - or for society I presume. This apparently gives us room to care for people, to have compassion for our fellow human beings and even to show sympathy and empathy. I genuinely think it is a clever argument, but there is no denying that sympathy and empathy are enemies to evolution and could potentially destroy the 'pack' if we lose sight of the 'survival of the fittest' mentality. What would Huxley have to say about this?
Well, Huxley stood his evolutionary ground whilst promoting his humanist ideology. He claimed that humanism was a replacement for religion, but he made no bones about how we should further advance our society and didn’t shy away from the uglier side of evolution. In 1926 he published a collection of articles in a book entitled The Stream of Life. The articles had formerly been broadcast by Huxley over the radio - this surprises me, because I think it takes some gall to express his ideology publicly. Huxley told his audience exactly how we could improve the human race.
"But what are we to think when pity for suffering individuals leads us not only to preserve them, but to allow them to reproduce and so not only to lower the quality of the race, but to produce more suffering in individuals yet unborn? What is one to think of the misplaced kindness which, to give an actual recent case, takes an epileptic woman to hospital to be operated on to remedy sterility; or the sentimentality which rejoices at the 'happiness', so called, generated by the marriage of two deaf mutes?"[i]
Here, I think, would be an appropriate time to bring up the actual joy generated by 'the marriage of two deaf mutes' (although I would never choose to use the phrase 'deaf mute'). In the 1960’s a London Newspaper ran an article entitled: ‘Deaf Couple Marry’ which detailed the marriage of my own parents.
My parents met at a London deaf school where sign language was forbidden and deaf children who persisted in this deviant language were shunned by society, because apparently the ‘waving around’ of their hands made them appear mentally ill.
The education my parents received focused mainly on manual skills and speech therapy and therefore they left school with barely any education. My father had a qualification in woodwork and my mother a qualification in cake decorating. When they married my parents were not allowed to make their marriage vows to one another in sign language, but instead had to struggle to speak their vows orally to each other.
Despite their disadvantages they were hard workers and determined to build a good life together. Some years later my parents 'reproduced' two very healthy hearing children who went on to marry and have hearing children of their own. Their first grandson, Benjamin grew up adoring his grandparents and communicating with them in sign language. He was inspired by the determination and courage with which they faced life. Today Benjamin is in his 4th year as a medical student at Imperial College London - one of the top medical schools not only in the UK, but also in the world. Their second grandson, Joseph 17 is currently gathering work experience so that he too can study medicine - if this is what God wills, and guess what their 11 year-old grand-daughter wants to do? I am not saying that this means our family has more value than anyone elses, I am merely pointing out that doing away with the ‘undesirables’ is not progressive!
My parents met at a London deaf school where sign language was forbidden and deaf children who persisted in this deviant language were shunned by society, because apparently the ‘waving around’ of their hands made them appear mentally ill.
The education my parents received focused mainly on manual skills and speech therapy and therefore they left school with barely any education. My father had a qualification in woodwork and my mother a qualification in cake decorating. When they married my parents were not allowed to make their marriage vows to one another in sign language, but instead had to struggle to speak their vows orally to each other.
Despite their disadvantages they were hard workers and determined to build a good life together. Some years later my parents 'reproduced' two very healthy hearing children who went on to marry and have hearing children of their own. Their first grandson, Benjamin grew up adoring his grandparents and communicating with them in sign language. He was inspired by the determination and courage with which they faced life. Today Benjamin is in his 4th year as a medical student at Imperial College London - one of the top medical schools not only in the UK, but also in the world. Their second grandson, Joseph 17 is currently gathering work experience so that he too can study medicine - if this is what God wills, and guess what their 11 year-old grand-daughter wants to do? I am not saying that this means our family has more value than anyone elses, I am merely pointing out that doing away with the ‘undesirables’ is not progressive!
I'd like to put this real life example to Julian Huxley and ask him how the marriage and reproduction of my parents actually weakened the human race and how, in the face of what they have achieved, he can justify his comments recommending that society should be 'segregating defectives in special institutions' and forcibly sterilising them.’[ii]
Growing up and studying World War II at school I realised that had my parents lived in Germany at that time they most likely would have ended up in the gas chambers since the ‘cleansing’ that Hitler and Nazi Germany practiced was in alignment with Huxley's eugenic ideas. Joe Boot, author of A Time to Search cites historical philosopher John Koster who wrote:
"Darwin and Huxley's picture of man's place in the universe prepared the way for the Holocaust...Darwin the scientist directly inspired Nietzsche’s superman theory and the Nazi corollary that some people were subhuman...People have to learn to stop thinking of other people as machines and learn to think of them as men and women possessed of souls...History doesn't need another one hundred million deaths to prove that scientific atheism is a form of mental illness.”[iii]
Eugenics is the logical outworking of evolution. I can see why on paper the ideas make sense and might sound like ‘progress’. I can also see why people who argue against this sort of ideology might be considered to be ‘feeble minded’ – something Huxley and the early proponents of evolution despised but what you see in the Nazi concentration camps is eugenics in action. The devaluing of human life flows from the atheist position of rejecting the teaching of the Bible that tells us that people are made in the image of God and therefore all life is precious. Instead life is expendable and killing of the defectives, undesirables and weak is to be applauded. The Nazi concentration camps brought these ideas into sharp focus and taught us that such ideas have consequences and these consequences would frequently come back to haunt us.
My grandmother, who was not a believer, told me that she was glad she didn't know that my mother was going to be deaf because if she had she would have made a terrible mistake and would have aborted her baby as an 'act of kindness'. My grandmother had no time for God, but she had unwittingly absorbed Darwinian ideas, which she didn’t fully understand but believed that they gave her license for her atheism. Millions of other people have hung their atheism on the same ‘respectable peg’ for as Richard Dawkins said, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’[iv]
The teaching of Christianity is in direct contrast to the harsh demands of evolution leading to eugenic ideologies and it is no wonder that Hitler himself rose up to declare:
"I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that ever existed.’[v]
I find it hard to believe that anyone would claim that Adolf Hitler was a Christian. I do not deny that he was born a catholic, but it is clear that Hilter’s intention was to wipe out Christianity.
"Altogether Hitler’s killing machine murdered 5 million Jews, and 7 million Christians — a little published fact that caused Jewish historian Max Dimont to declare that “the world blinded itself to the murder of Christians” by Nazi Germany.”[vi]
Why?
I
have no doubt that many supporters of evolution do not hold to the
extreme eugenic ideas of the likes of Huxley, or Hitler for that matter,
but I truly believe that for the evolutionist there is not a lot of ‘wriggle room’ here. As Edward Simon said (1983), “I
cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it
engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible.”[vii].
I believe that the grace of God covered my family and that we are living proof that Huxley couldn’t have been more wrong – I absolutely do rejoice over the happiness brought about by the marriage of my wonderful deaf parents.
© Kim Sandy 2013
I believe that the grace of God covered my family and that we are living proof that Huxley couldn’t have been more wrong – I absolutely do rejoice over the happiness brought about by the marriage of my wonderful deaf parents.
© Kim Sandy 2013
[i] Julian Huxley (1926). The Stream of Life, cited by Boot, J. (2002). A Time to Search: Discovering meaning and purpose in life, Eastborne, Kingsway Publications, p.106.
[ii] Ibid., p.106
[iii] John P. Koster, Jr,.The Atheist Syndrome (1989), cited by Boot, J. (2002). A Time to Search: Discovering meaning and purpose in life, Eastborne, Kingsway Publications, p.111
[iv] Dawkins, R. (1989) The Blind Watchmaker, London, Penguin Books (this edition 2006), p.6
[v] Alolf Hitler, cited by Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, p.155.
[vi] Dimont,
Max I (1994) cited by Bergman (2006) in ‘Was Adolf Hitler a Christian: A
common objection to creationism.’ [online] available at
http://www.trueorigin.org/hitler01.asp (last accessed 22nd June 2013).
[vii] Edward Simon, "Another Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248
Picture of Juilian Huxley: The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: his image is in the public domain because
its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European
Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author
plus 70 years.
