Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
As many know, eugenics (meaning "well born") is a method of deciding who is fit for life. It is based on Darwinian ideas and political climate. It fell out of favor in the US when the Nazis took it to its logical conclusion, but is returning and being used to eliminate Down Syndrome.
Donald Trump and Mike Pence with guests on World Down Syndrome Day, 2019 Credit: Flickr / The White House / Tia Dufour
Of course, when I say "eliminate" Down Syndrome (sometimes called Down's Syndrome), I mean that prenatal tests determining the condition result in abortion. Cold-hearted Iceland proudly proclaims that there is almost no Down Syndrome there, but that's because the children were murdered. (Interestingly, Poland has gone the other direction.) My shameful distant cousins in Denmark are about as bad as Iceland.
I am convinced that a big reason that the formerly United States is under divine judgment is because of the millions of abortions that are performed. Many of these are simply out of convenience, and women know they are ending lives but do not care. In addition, evolution has been used to justify abortion, saying it's not really human yet. (Someone raised an interesting question: If the child is not human, why does Planned Parenthood engage in criminal activity by harvesting the organs and selling them?)
Another excuse for abortion is that people play God and decide that if the child has Down Syndrome, it will have a poor quality of life, so it's a good thing to murder it. This is blasphemous. It is also illogical, because there are differing degrees of the condition. My brother had severe Down Syndrome, and my parents would not have been happier without him. He also lived to age 64 — much longer than was projected and re-projected.
See the pattern? Two of the excuses for eugenics are Darwinism and quality of life. The same is happening to murder unborn children with Down Syndrome. Because God is our Creator, not evolution and natural selection (unnatural selection with eugenics), all of this is more heinous. Two articles on this subject follow.
One small gripe I have is that the author is a biblical creationist, but seems reluctant to say so much of the time. He would do well to learn presuppositional apologetics.
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
Regular readers have seen how the distraction of, "Evolution is just biology" is completely false. We recently saw how evolutionism can be a religion in its own right, and how it is a worldview through which people interpret data and make choices.
Secular geologists "know" that the world is billions of years old. That's what the Bearded Buddha wants, that's what he gets — evidence for the young earth is suppressed or ignored. Social Darwinism was the application of his biological ideas to produce eugenics and a drastic increase in abortions, scientific racism, women as inferior, and much more.
William Blackstone wrote his commentaries on the law, and those were foundational for a long time. Christopher Langell was influenced by Darwin, and decided that since evolution was true, then everything evolves. The US Constitution is something that needs to evolve as well; judges are more important than our founding documents as law evolves. We can also see how evolutionary thinking affects the teaching and understanding of history. Ideas have consequences, especially when followed with the ardor of people who deny the Creator.
I recommend that "How a belief in evolution affects law and history" will help you understand many things, including the condition of our society today. It also helps us understand the trampling of the US Constitution.
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
We think they are dead, but Darwin's acolytes keep using the black magick of scientism and wishful thinking to bring them back. Not living organisms, but their bad ideas. In this case, the idea that an unborn child goes through evolutionary stages in its development. This has been proven false for a mighty long time, pilgrim, but it is still used to justify abortion.
If scum-to-sorcerer evolution were "settled science" or a fact, there should be no need to use bad logic, misrepresentation, startlingly bad mistakes — and outright fraud. When posting about Haeckel's fake drawings on social media, people said those long-discredited things coupled with the rejected recapitulation idea can be found in modern textbooks. As any knowledgeable propagandist can tell you, concentration and repetition coupled with the Big Lie are effective tools to influence the undiscerning. Devious Darwinists seem to be trying to make intellectual zombies of the public. One tinhorn said that even though the drawings were fake, the concept is true. Or perhaps he simply does not understand his own mythology. (Also, Dan Rather used forged documents in an attack on George W. Bush: the story was "correct" even though the documents were fake. That's logic, uh huh.) Ja, meine Herren, ze end justifies ze means!
Some evolutionists are imprisoned by academia and training, knowing nothing other than evolution. Others are reprobates, and when they are shown the truth, they run away, screaming, "Galileo Figaro, the facts are very very frightening!" We must not let them get away with bringing back zombified fake science. People are determined to deny the God of creation.
So entrenched has evolutionary theory become, Darwinists keep looking for ghosts of vanished human ancestry in the human body. It was false when Ernst Haeckel falsified embryo drawings; it is false now. In chapter 10 of Dr Jerry Bergman’s book Evolution’s Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries, Bergman shows how this so-called “Biogenetic Law” that ontogeny (the development of the embryo) recapitulates phylogeny (the evolutionary history of the animal) has been used to justify racism and abortion. He quotes W. J. Bock in who wrote in Science as far back as 1969...
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article seems somewhat appropriate on the anniversary of these here United States declaring independence from England, but it is not about that event. I will let people with more skill deal with those details. Instead, I am going to touch on a few subjects before getting to the main point. You're welcome to ride along and see how this develops.
When listening to podcasts or reading certain materials, I like getting some personal information from the speaker or writer. It makes them seem more relatable. I understand that people like that sort of thing, and that's one reason I put in some of those things in posts and articles. I have a weblog for things that I try to post on once a month to keep it active; things like not caring about the finales of certain popular media events. Another weblog was my first, and that is also infrequent, often for politics and culture. There are items I've posted there because they were of a more political nature but still had some relevance to creation science. Fortunately, we still have many things to discuss on this site (such as how the Genesis Flood carved out canyons and valleys) that are not going to have much of a political flavor. I am reluctant to post political things here, but it seems like some of that will be necessary. No, I'm not planning on being a cheerleader for a political party (one of them hates God, the other at least pretends to respect him), and I doubt that you care who is running for the Kingston, NY city council. Sometimes there is an overlap between political items and the use of science philosophies.
Hopefully regular readers have noticed that logical fallacies can not only be spotted, but apply to everyday life. Being aware of bad reasoning is mighty helpful when dealing with fake science, and are needful to see when politicians and false religions are being manipulative. One simply way to slow down any charlatan is to ask for them to support their claims instead of blindly accepting their assertions. Leftists have taken science captive and are using twisted science to advance their own agendas. The secular science industry is supporting gender dysphoria while at the same time denying basic science (check your chromosomes and those parts below your belt). Sex roles go way back in time (see "‘Hominids’ Were Gender Binary"). This has gone beyond issues of mental illness and morality, and secularists are riding herd with false science. The coming ice age — I mean, global warming — I mean, global climate change — is a subject you cannot avoid. It is a leftist political movement that manipulates bad science concepts that are very similar to evolutionism. Indeed, alarmist climate change views are rooted in denying the Creator and in old earth beliefs. Some hysterical proponents reject freedom of speech (even freedom of thought) and want climate change deniers punished.
Do you see how politics, science, and morality can be overlapping? Now we're nearing the main subject. It is probable that anyone who listens to the radio or watches television in Western nations will hear something about abortion. It is almost a sacred sacrament for leftists, and they use emotive phrases such as, "A woman has a right to choose!" and "women's health" so they can get and keep political power. Murder of the unborn is fully acceptable to them even though it harms women (also see "Refuting Arguments Abortionists Use"). and I noticed that this pandering to women smacks of pagan goddess worship. Study on that. Leftists support Planned Parenthood, who not only makes money on abortions, but sells aborted baby parts for more profit. Then they appeal to emotions by pretending to care about children. See how that works? Obviously, abortion is not just a political issue. It is a moral concern as well. This brings us to eugenics. It was a political pseudoscience used to control the population where the "unfit" were discouraged from breeding, even through forced sterilization. It was popular in the United States in the early 20th century, and the Nazis took it to its logical horrendous conclusion, so it fell out of favor. Racist abortionist Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics. It is making a comeback, and abortion is an important part of it.
Liberty, free speech, and evolutionary thinking don't play well together. The article linked below has significant political content. That is unavoidable because of the previously mentioned overlap with science, morality, and politics. Major events in the United States and in other countries have an effect on other countries as well. The only true source for morality is in what leftists, atheists, and evolutionists despise: the authority of the Bible, beginning with creation. We can declare our independence from sin through humbling ourselves, repenting, and receiving salvation through Jesus Christ.
On May 28, 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strong, well-documented opinion detailing how Darwinism logically influenced Planned Parenthood, eugenics, and Margaret Sanger. The pro-abortion secular media aggressively attacked his historical analysis, claiming, among other things, that it was factually incorrect. The critics’ bias was obvious in their choice of words. They referred to human embryos as “cells” or “cellular globules,” “future humans,” and other terms that dehumanized the unborn. They condemned Thomas’s reference to an aborted fetus “as if it were a child.” We should never forget that leading up to the Holocaust, the Nazis dehumanized their victims, calling them “vermin,” “lives not worth living,” and “useless eaters.” Clarence Thomas’s opinion addressed the main aspect of an Indiana law at issue before the Supreme Court, specifically the “Sex Selective and Disability Abortion Ban.” . . . The law only imposes liability on the abortion provider, not the woman.[4] . . . Pro-abortion critics were ruthless in their attacks on Thomas’s historical analysis. Typical of the comments were these by Elie Mystal, who rationalized abortion based on race, sex or disability:
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen People who support abortion are frequently vehement in their views, but it should give Brian Sims (a Democrat member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives) reason to pause when both pro-life and pro-abortion people agree that he is out of line. It is obvious that he is a bully. However, I am not going to spend much time dealing with what has already been covered in the news. Instead, we are going to ride along a slightly different trail and learn some important things.
Before we return to Brian Sims, some other items need to be mentioned. I learned quite a bit from The Chris Stigall Show podcasts, including interviews and his own insight, so I thank him for that. I recommend the podcast called "The Great Pushback" at the 19 min. 34 sec. mark for an excellent discussion. Free to listen online or download.
The Evolution Deception
Regular readers know that I am strongly pro-life. A child is fully human from conception, and this is supported both biblically and by medical science. Biblical creationists uphold the sanctity of life, maintaining that humans are uniquely created in the image of God and are not "just another animal". The secular science industry has been acting like coyotes, pretending to be doing science work but instead, they are smuggling leftist ideas into the mainstream. We have seen these things here many times regarding fish-to-fool evolution, but secularists are also promoting abortion. It was more subtle in the past. Abortionists would add to their "it's just a clump of cells" or "conceptus" lie by saying the child is going through previous stages of evolution. Some would pretend to prove it with Ernst Haeckel's drawings. Those drawings have been known to be fraudulent for many years. Even so, abortionists use that Haeckel evolution excuse to justify murdering children. For more about this, see "Evolution and Abortion". Because PP has such a negative image, they are trying to rebrand themselves.
Planned Profithood
Brian Sims was asking for donations to Planned Parenthood. Why? Because they allegedly stand for "reproductive freedom". If you study on it a spell, you'll realize that such a term actually implies that women carry human children, not reproducing something else. Again, why support that company? Not only do they receive our tax dollars (despite the objections of many Americans), PP is also highly profitable. I reckon there's something wrong with people who donate to well-heeled organizations in the first place.
Founded on Racism
In the videos, Sims called the people he bushwhacked "racists". Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a firm racist and eugenicist, implementing the "Negro Project" as a thinly-veiled effort to reduce the population of black Americans. Ever notice that the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority areas?
People Know They Are Killing Children
Despite using fake science as an excuse for abortion and forming other excuses, people do know that they are killing children.Some even freely admit it, and are proud of what they are doing. Many in the pro-life community (such as anti-creationist, anti-Bible Matt Walsh) want to educate people about the unborn child being a person, but the hearts of abortionists are the problem, not their minds. They wish to continue with their immorality and selfishness. The Word of God is the answer, despite Walsh's apparent contempt for it. See Sye Ten Bruggencate's discussion in his video, "How To Answer Matt Walsh Part 1". I want to add that Sye spends a bit more time than necessary refuting Matt's claim that Sye used a bad analogy, but I recommend staying with the video. He also provided some links below the video that you may find helpful.
Learning from Brian Sims
I have pointed out several times that atheists and anti-creationists try to control discussions, and we should not let them put us on the defensive. Instead, we need to keep them on-topic, and asking them good questions is very helpful. This concept also applies in pro-life discussions. However, when it becomes clear that someone is unwilling to act in a rational manner and prefers to justify his or her rebellion against God, it is usually time to move on. Even though Sims was harassing people (and getting himself in trouble in the process), we can learn from what happened (you can follow the link just above and find links to his videos). First of all, why does it matter that the people he picked on were white (with one embarrassing exception: "I'm pretty far from white")? It is irrelevant, but he follows it up with the risible falsehood that what they were doing was "racist". Sims also used the question-begging epithet "pseudo-Christians", and said, "What you are doing is far from Christian!" According to what standard? How do you define Christian? The Bible tells Christians to defend life and defend the helpless. How does encouraging the murder of unborn children make someone a better Christian? Chris Stigall suggests that Brian should "redirect his ire and concern for inclusivity, tolerance, and respect elsewhere" to be consistent. Uh, Chris, you spelled his name wrong. Sims also kept repeating "shame on you" and making other accusations. Again, by what standard should these people be ashamed? Is there a reason he picked on Roman Catholics? They have a right to practice their religion in a peaceful manner, and it was clear that they were doing just that. (Although I am a Protestant, I support their rights.) Also, he demanded, "How many children have you clothed today?..."How many children have you put shoes on their feet today?" Two things wrong with that. First, those questions were an irrelevant thesis, a kind of straw man or red herring that has nothing to do with the situation. Second, he tacitly admitted that PP is killing children! Leftists like Sims would like to invite people like me to a necktie party. I am a Christian, biblical creationist, white, male, heterosexual, politically Conservative. And my apologetics approach is rooted in a presuppositional framework.
The Noetic Effect
Brian relishes his sin and is so angry that he cannot think clearly. He is (or was) an attorney, but he is doing things that he knows are illegal. He is in grave danger. Romans 1:24 NASB has a phrase that should be chilling: God gave them over. To put it another way, God is saying, "You reject me, so have it your way." Sin touches every area of our lives, and is worse when we suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans. 1:18). Thinking is clouded, especially on areas of morality. This is the noetic effect of sin. I have seen people who are rational in some areas, but when it comes to the truth about God, they go off the rails and become incoherent. Truth, science itself, logic, morality — all come from God. Many folks (like one mentioned here) invent a god that makes them comfortable, but they cannot use reason consistently. Notice how Sims was infuriated by the calm responses from people who would not react to his provocations?
Most Important
As a pro-life Christian and a biblical creationist, I implore Brian Sims and others to repent. They cannot save themselves through activism on one side or the other. Religion cannot save you. Nor can politics. We all will stand before our Creator Jesus Christ and confess that he is Lord of all (Romans 14:11, Isaiah 45:23, Philippians 2:10-11). I am ready for that day. Are you? Some other items for your consideration. First, "Refuting Arguments Abortionists Use". Next, you may want to see Tucker Carlson's interview with the mother of the teenagers who were harassed by Brian Sims. Here is a link to material on logical fallacies that we frequently encounter. Finally, the video "Seven Reasons" is presented below.
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
On Saturday, October 20, I had just finished reading a Western novel, which I do from time to time to "decompress". Shortly after lights out, Steven J. Wright sent me a message that I discovered the next morning. He wondered if I would do a review of his new novel, Taking Up Space, which was going to be published very soon. (After all, I wrote about his novel The Deception back in twenty aught thirteen.) I warned him that I would have to mention things I did not care for as well as positive, and he was okay with that. This child saddled up with some free ebook reading material under no obligation to give a glowing review. So, that's the disclaimer as well as a personal anecdote.
Most folks don't know that I am writing up a review for a book, video, or whatever. This was an interesting experience. I was corresponding with Mr. Wright and giving him progress reports as well as some thoughts along the way.
Although you have seen some book reviews on this site, I actually read very little Christian fiction. Writers (and movie makers) tend to have stereotypical characters, get preachy, and give sappy endings. Not in this case. Mr. Wright did not write a "Christian" novel here. Instead, it is a novel from a Christian perspective about the sanctity of life. A couple of times (don't tell anyone this, it'll spoil my tough guy image), I was almost moved to tears — both of sadness and anger. There's your first indication that you get involved in the story.
It is not difficult to imagine a writer with a secular worldview adding graphic violence and excessive profanity. No profanity here, and most of the violence is short. This shows that a good story can be told without going into such things.
Some of the material was influenced by the author's experiences. Wright mentions a place called The Sinks in the Smoky Mountains, a place he has visited several times. An exceptionally evil character that is introduced early in the book has the nickname Black Dog, which came from one of the Bell Witch legends. Steven is acquainted with the Bell Witch tales. Part of the book deals with the elderly and infirm, and their quality of life. He works with the elderly and handicapped, so he has direct knowledge of some of these subjects.
I like short chapters, and Taking Up Space has 37. This not only helps busy readers have a place to put it down (if they can) but to advance storylines. Yes, there are several stories here. We are introduced to important characters in the early chapters as the book progresses. I still wondered, "Who are these people, and what are they doing in my story?" The threads come together for the most part, directly or indirectly.
We have an unwanted pregnancy, weaselly legal manipulation, two national crises (this was the big story), and a section on euthanizing the handicapped and infirm. Although Mr. Wright does not use the term, eugenics is involved. Eugenics is closely tied to abortion, rejecting the sanctity of life. This is what happens when people reject our Creator's plans values.
One bad habit I have when reading or watching a show is to try and predict what is going to happen. That did not work very often here. I would be thinking, "I know what's gonna happen", and be wrong. That's a good thing because I think predictability is good in science, but undesirable in novels, movies, and so on.
I suspect that we all know, or have been one ourselves, an "armchair quarterback". That is, someone with an opinion on how to solve problems for which he or has little or no real knowledge. (Sure, you've read the player's statistics, so you know that the coach fouled up by not putting in one player and removing the other. But you weren't there.) Likewise, some folks think they can solve problems their spouses have at their places of employment, or how the government can deal with healthcare. But "solving" one problem can create others.
There are many times where the answers are not easy, and additional problems remain unforeseen. Mr. Wright shows how some subjects are far more difficult than we may imagine. I could write articles on several aspects of Taking Up Space or maybe have discussions in forums. Perhaps a simpler thing to say: this book can make you think.
That said, I still recommend Taking Up Space because it is thought-provoking, gives a strong pro-life position, has believable characters (with faults as well as qualities), intriguing storylines, and more. It certainly is not boring! For that matter, you might want to have members of a group each get a copy and use it for discussions.
Taking Up Space is available in both paperback and Kindle versions. Hey, just in time for Christmas shopping!
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
This post will have two parts, the first one is a link to an article, and second is a link to a video on an important related topic. Regular readers may have noticed my conservative approach to theology, and biblical creation science seems to attract those of us who believe the Bible without compromise. In addition, my pro-life views have been made plain here several times. Once again, it seems that biblical creationists are pro-life as a whole; I have never encountered or read a biblical creationist who approves of abortion.
In my activities online and in the physical world, I have noticed that there are few atheists who oppose abortion. This seems contradictory. After all, they believe that this life is all we have, make the most of it, pass along your genes (according to evolutionary thinking), then push up the daisies. It seems like they would fight for life everywhere. Unfortunately, atheists generally oppose the sanctity of marriage and promote things that are instituted by God. We are not the product of molecules-to-mother evolution, old son. Creationists get to the heart of the matter, not only citing Bible verses to support our position on life, but explaining that life is sacred. Indeed, we are created in God's image, and he doesn't cotton to people killing the helpless. Further, the logical conclusion from medical science and logical thinking matches what Bible believers proclaim: life begins at conception.
Abortion is not simply an issue of empirical science because scientists cannot answer the question of precisely when human life begins. Abortion is a battle between worldviews. A prime component of these worldviews is whether or not one holds to the authority of Scripture. To be fair, some evolutionists may be pro-life. However, the implications of an evolutionary worldview lead to the devaluing of human life, whereas the implications of biblical creation uphold the sanctity of human life, even in the womb. What people believe about origins will influence their answers to the following questions related to the issue of abortion: Who is man? What is the purpose of death? Who determines right from wrong?
To read the rest, click on "Abortion and the Origins Debate". Also important, but with a focus on the American leftists, is "Sanitizing Genocide: Media Still Excuses Abortion". I hope you will also return for additional information, below. Howdy, and welcome back. This next section is for Christians who oppose abortion. There is a group known as Abolish Human Abortion. You may have seen them in protests, holding up signs with graphic photos of aborted babies, "church repent" signs, and their stylized AHA logo. Also, you can easily find them in various places on the web. There are several — I don't know what to call them — units, maybe (it is not a formal organization) in many locations. I have had encounters with AHA supporters. Although they claim to be Christians, they are very sanctimonious. I have been told, and read of other being told, that if you do not want to abolish abortion their way, right away, then you do not care about abortion at all, or are not even a Christian. I remember on Facebook Page that was supposedly about Christian apologetics, but gives a great deal of space to graphic AHA material. They also negated observances of tragedies with multiple killings with saying, in effect, "Yeah, but abortion is worse!" AHA supporters equate their purpose with the gospel. Not hardly! The gospel message is rather different. Below is a link to a video by Dr. James White about remarks by Russell Hunter of AHA. It is supposed to start at 57 minutes at 15 seconds into the episode of The Dividing Line, so if it doesn't go there, you know where to skip ahead. The ranting is bad enough, but Hunter's quiet and reasonable-sounding presentation later on is, to be blunt, insidious. It's rather long, but worth seeing. To do so, click here. Human abortion is evil, and the biblical creation worldview is the most consistent in opposing it. An evolutionary perspective is incomplete at best, and an atheistic perspective completely devalues human life.
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
Secular psychologist David P. Barash decided that it is time to make human-chimpanzee hybrids, which would cross a significant number of ethical and moral guidelines. Psychology is not exactly a biological science, but the secular science industry as a whole, including psychology, is firmly entrenched in materialistic worldviews with evolution as the cornerstone. To push the boundaries and tamper with embryos and genetics is consistent with their fundamentally flawed paradigms. Not too long ago, scientists were lamenting that they were constrained against extending the lives of human embryos in a dish (evolutionary thinking supports abortion), wanting to keep them alive a bit longer. The chimera experimentation through CRISPR is increasing (see "Ethics, Scientism, and an Evolutionary Worldview" for more about this). Believing the false science that the chimpanzee genome is 98 percent similar to that of humans, that molecules-to-monkey evolution is a fact, a materialistic worldview — these add up to contempt for human life. Biblical creationists know that, although there are similarities in biology between humans and animals, we were created separately by the Master Engineer in his image — we are not just another type of animal. Secularists want to be in complete control of science and ethics. They have their own criteria for morality and value, and we are already seeing that the boundaries are being moved. The inspiration for this article came from Dr. James R. White's March 13, 2018 episode of The Dividing Line. He did a good part of my work for me in the first few minutes. I would like to suggest that you keep going for a bit more, as he discusses:
. . . a video from Jordan Peterson and interacting with the concepts of suffering and human purpose in his lectures. Dr. Peterson has been great in exposing the fundamental flaws and simple irrationality of many of the left’s pet projects today, and we can be very thankful for that, but we cannot use that as an excuse to not point out that the best a Jungian evolutionary worldview can produce (consistently) is a form of Pelagianism, a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” moralism that lacks the key ingredients provided by full gospel proclamation.
Normally, I am reluctant to embed longer videos (I'm not asking you to watch the whole thing unless you have a mind to), but it shouldn't slow the site down too much. Hope you can spare some time. Also, the audio can be downloaded here. See the addendum, below.
Back in the early 20th century, social Darwinism had a branch of "science" called eugenics. People wanted to be all sciency and stuff, so they accepted this method of evolutionary thinking. Essentially, the "unfit" were forcibly sterilized, or at least strongly discouraged from reporducing. Racist Maggie Sanger started Planned Parenthood to help eliminate black people through abortion. Eventually, Hitler took eugenics to its logical conclusion, which caused folks to shy away from that pseudoscience for a while.
Colorized version of the International Eugenics Conference logo
But since evil Darwinian thinking persists, eugenics never completely went away. Some owlhoots try to deny social Darwinism, and even make up their own "facts":
This is the opposite of the truth. Liar? Uninformed? Anxious to contradict the st00pid creationist? My vote is the first and third: lying, and desiring to contradict. Especially since he deleted the Tweet after I said I would use it after I caught him lying; he deleted it and blocked me.
Sometimes, eugenics hides under different names (sort of like atheists calling themselves "brights" and so forth), but it's still just putting lipstick on a pig. Recently, a "London Conference on Intelligence" was held, but it was just another eugenics conference. Dishonesty promoting evolutionary thinking is consistent with such a wicked worldview, but some folks objected. Interesting, did anyone ask who decides the criteria as to who is unfit, and why? They don't seem to consider that life was designed by God, and that we are created in his image.
A breaking news story by the London Student in early January exposed a “secret” eugenics conference held annually at University College London (UCL) since 2014. The article clearly expressed indignation over the idea that some people still advocate for state-manipulated human reproductive practices. But similar outrage over the same disregard for human life sanctioned by the Roe v. Wade (1973) decision 45 years earlier on January 22 was strikingly absent from the report.
Going to have to use expensive words in this post, especially since the subject is rather technical. A chimera is a mythological creature made of multiple parts. Depending on the myth it would have the head of a lion, snake tail, and the body of a goat. This word has been incorporated into biological and medical sciences involving ethical considerations regarding biological tampering.
That was the easy part of the vocabulary. Now we move on to microchimerism, and you can see micro in there as well as chimera, but adding -ism does not make it into a religion. Instead, it is a rapidly-developing area of study for women's health. Simply put, it is male DNA in a woman's body, had has a great deal to do with fetal development. God's ideal for marriage and procreation is one man and one woman. The DNA is found in father, mother, and child, which includes a woman having multiple fathers for her children, and abortions.When people ignore God's ideal for their own purposes, they are putting a woman's health at risk, beginning at the cellular level.
Women are at risk from sexual involvement with multiple partners. This can impact their health and increase the risk of miscarriage in pregnancy, low birth weight and dangerous diseases that have the potential to kill. Additionally, the intriguing, relatively recent discovery of DNA in the bodies of women, originating from the fathers of their children, has brought attention to an unsuspected biological closeness between a woman and her children, and between a mother and her spouse. This DNA, clearly distinct from the mother’s, has been shown to persist in her body for decades after a pregnancy. Its presence not only may have health effects, but also exemplifies the deep biological union between a man and a woman, facilitated by the children they have together.
To read the rest, prepare to invest about half an hour and do some thinking. When you're ready, click on Dr. Kathy Wallace's "Becoming one flesh".
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
Some people tell us that Darwinism is just a biological theory, and try to give the impression that it is something that just scientists and academicians examine. Not hardly! Evolutionary thinking has many facets, affecting society at many levels, many of which people may not realize have a Darwinian basis.
Margaret Sanger, 1922, credit: Wikimedia Commons / Library of Congress
Many know that she was the founder of the for-profit abortion mill called Planned Parenthood (not much of a surprise, since she was a lousy mother to her own children), but there is more to her than is known to the general public. To use the medical term, she was really messed up. Sanger was into "free love" (there's a word for women like that, but I shouldn't use it here), racial purity, elimination of the unfit, and more. The sanitized image of Maggie is presented, and she's a hero to many — unfortunately, even to some professing Christians.
Social Darwinism gave rise to eugenics, and Sanger used that "science" as a way to justify abortion. The "unfit" needed to be eliminated, whether through sterilization, abortion, or other ways. Who is unfit? It's up to people who think like her to decide, but you can be sure that they won't believe that man is special and created in God's image.
Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the leading organization advocating abortion in the United States today. Darwinism had a profound influence on her thinking, including her conversion to, and active support of, eugenics. She was specifically concerned with reducing the population of the ‘less fit’, including ‘inferior races’ such as ‘Negroes’. One major result of her lifelong work was to support the sexual revolution that has radically changed our society.
To read the rest of this extremely interesting article, click on "Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist". This is being posted on her birthday. I think she won't have any trouble lighting the birthday candles where she is, if you know what I mean.
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
Regular readers know that I keep emphasizing that scientists are not the dispassionate automatons that many people think. They are not running around, gathering facts, then following where the evidence leads. Rather, they are human, having their preconceptions as well as good and bad character traits. It's been more obvious lately (or has the trend increased?) that the secular science industry has a definite leftist penchant (see references 7,8,9 at this link). It gets worse.
The scientific establishment also has some intrinsic moral problems, and needs to borrow a moral compass. Moral concerns of scientists would definitely be improved by biblical Christianity, especially since left-learning science institutions are increasingly activistic for the murder of unborn humans in the womb. If you study on it a spell, you'll see it's not all that surprising, since they deny God the Creator (therefore, denying that we are created in God's image), and try to make evolution a creator. It also follows that evolution has been used to justify abortion on demand, with "It's just a tissues", or, "It's in a fish stage of recapitulation", which was based on the fraud of Haeckel the jackal. Is the feeling of justification by science part of the reason that pro-abortionists make their view a "rights" cause? My speculation is that science feeds society which feeds science in areas like this. Lena Dunham regrets never having had an abortion, which would apparently give her more credibility in her support of murder of a child that was created in God's image.
Is the ending of human life trendy? Maybe we'll see combination hair, tattoo, and abortion salons soon. Albert Mohler has some insightful comments on this in his January 9, 2017 episode of The Briefing (you can listen or read the transcript). Further, Dr. Mohler discussed how religious people, including ultra-liberal "Christians", Hindus, and others, blessed an abortion clinic as "sacred. See or hear the January 12, 2017 episode of The Briefing for more about this immoral behavior. Society is trending toward such casual treatment of human life, and the immoral views of the science industry fit right in. Meanwhile, there are still those of us who believe that defending the defenseless are some of the hallmarks of a just society. Further, the hysterical asperity spewed forth in a Nature editorial rivals that of cyberstalkers. They are demonizing those of us who believe that unborn lives should be protected, wanting access to baby parts in the name of "science". Secular scientists are objective? That'll be the day!
Is there any logical or empirical reason why science journals and secular reporters should always take the pro-abortion position? Pardon, Big Science, your bias is showing. When it comes to abortion and other ethical controversies, secular journals and science editors almost always throw in their lot with the leftist, progressive, liberal crowd who chant for abortion on demand, unlimited access to embryonic stem cells, funding for Planned Parenthood, and other Democrat Party platform positions. Why is that? Don’t they realize they themselves could have been aborted? Do they have any scientific evidence that an unborn baby is not a person? No. The bias is clear; any restrictions on abortion are viewed as bad. Any limits on access to human embryos and fetal tissue are presented as a step “backward” for society. Here are some examples.
A proponent of Darwinian evolution was Ernst Haeckel, and he was so het up about proving evolution, he made some drawings about it. Ever heard of "ontology recapitulates phylogeny"? That's the fantasy that an embryo goes through the various stages of evolutionary history, and Ernie illustrated it. With fake drawings. The concept has been lassoed and hog-tied for a mighty long time.
But "science" must prevail, even if dishonesty is necessary! So, even though government school indoctrinators and textbook writers know that Haeckel's material was proved to be fake, they use them anyway! Some people have tried to redeem him. I've even had people comment that it doesn't matter if they drawings are fake, what they show is true. Sure, Poindexter. I bet you believe in square circles, too. Can't let people know there's a Creator God, now, can we? Mayhaps they keep bringing this nonsense back is because they use it to support abortion. There are superficial resemblances to gill slits, tails, and the like. Let's have an honest medical doctor explain.
“Generations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.” Science magazine is referring to Haeckel’s sketches of diverse animal embryos first published in 1874 (Figure 1). They report that Haeckel fraudulently minimized major differences between animals at the earliest developmental stages. This fraud is peculiar because it is being “rediscovered” by new research. Remarkably, Science notes that some embryologists of Haeckel’s day had doubts about the drawing’s accuracy, and his peers actually got him to admit he used “artistic license.” Yet these drawings (or similar reproductions) have been incorporated into nearly every major biology textbook ever since. So, unlike Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor, and other evolutionary frauds that only temporarily duped everyone, Haeckel’s blunder misleads to this day. Thus, present biology students are still deceived by a complicated tangle of misleading ideas that clever evolutionists regularly attach to Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As secularism takes hold in the rest of the world, it eventually reaches Canada, and then the United States. Indeed, Belgium recently allowed a child with a terminal illness (whose name and age are unknown) to be granted a request to be euthanized. Now, many countries have a legal voting age of 18 or 21, presumably based on the belief that minors are not mature enough to vote. Currently, the voting age in Belgium is 18, but a child has the maturity and wisdom to decide to end his or her own life? Not hardly! To further illustrate how Belgium is morally conflicted regarding children, that country may be lowering the age of sexual consent to a mere 13! What do you think is the root cause of these things? Increased secularization.
A recent report in Canada's National Post tells of how the academic journal Bioethics discussed a debate about disallowing conscientious objectors to abortion and euthanasia to be barred from refusing these procedures to patients. Your conscience, your religious values — those have to be stashed in your saddlebags while you're working. It's easy to see that this can escalate to a rule that if you don't agree with secularist views and place a value on human life that interferes with the state's protocol, you cannot be in the medical profession.
France is on the way to making it a crime to have pro-life activities and Websites. Their biased and misleading wording is staggering. A similar proposal by Steve Clark in the Journal of Medical Ethics suggests that medical professionals who object to abortion and euthanasia should have their objections evaluated by tribunals! Right, they should have the say whether or not someone has a serious conscience-related concern. And medical pro-death activity is going on in the United States United States. Contrary to these things, Christians, especially biblical creationists, believe that men and women are created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), and life is sacred. Since Darwinian evolution gained a stranglehold on science, people have been taught that we are nothing more than animals at the top of the food chain. We are falsely told that the Bible is disproved and irrelevant. Christians have been a preserving force to slow society's journey down the cold road of the evolution-based worldview of the secularists. Many humanists, evolutionists, and others with a materialistic mindset want us silenced. To reach this goal, our legal rights have been challenged directly and indirectly. Barring legal means to stifle us, those who hate God and the Bible seek to demonize us through ridicule, misrepresentation, outright lies, and more. If they get their way, whether by our removal by God (the rapture), tremendously increased persecution, or some other means, what happens? Secularists are more likely to get what they want. They may realize they've reached their goals and regretted it, but hold the satisfaction that Christians and creationists are not around to interfere.
In the 1931 dystopian novelBrave New World by Aldous Huxley (an evolutionist maintaining the Huxley family tradition), human life is nothing special. The worst obscenities possible are "mother" and "father", since there is no birth, marriage, or family in the civilized world. Sexual promiscuity is encouraged from an early age (everyone belongs to everyone), but homosexuality and other perversions were not considered. Contraception is a part of the many things that are conditioned into a child after it is "decanted" from an assembly line process. Abortion is easy, but usually unnecessary. Embryos are dumbed down to fit the needs of society, and more are grown or made as needed, whether with full mental capabilities, semi-moronic, or others between them. Alphas would not be happy with doing menial Epsilon work because they have their full faculties, while Epsilons have the least brain power.
There was a de factosecularist religion, and Ford's name was an epithet or a curse (Henry Ford was revered because of his invention of the assembly line). Society was fond of new things, and one reason that the real God is not considered is because he, and the Christian religion, are old, therefore, undesirable. Interestingly, science and art are also suppressed, and they keep science on a tight rein. Society's primary goals are personal happiness and the stability of society. Science, religion, and art threaten the stability, Ford be praised.
The community, and pleasing oneself as well others, are expected, stress is eliminated through the conditioning and embryonic growth process (Huxley included a few discredited remarks about evolution as "facts", including "gill slits"). Also, stress is dealt with through the recreational drug soma, which is encouraged by the state. Children were conditions to consider death irrelevant, so euthanasia was no big deal. Interestingly, Huxley (the author of the story) was dying of cancer when he was euthanized with LSD at his own request. A short story got my attention, "2 B R 0 2 B" (to be or naught to be) by Kurt Vonnegut. In a future society, old age is nonexistent, and birth is seldom planned. So, if someone is born, someone else has to volunteer to die or the newborn child is killed. If you want to read it, click on "The Project Gutenberg EBook of 2 B R 0 2 B, by Kurt Vonnegut", or to listen for free, go to "Short Science Fiction Collection 020", it's the first entry and takes about 19 minutes. I'll allow that secularists are not the only problem. There are pusillanimous "Christians" who are compromising on biblical principles, not only accepting materialistic presuppositions, but also encouraging them. Notice how conservative, Bible-believing Christians are the ones who are told to change, to compromise. Roman Catholics, evolutionists, deluded theistic evolutionists, homosexuals, atheists, terrorists, or any other Bible-denying group — they don't budge, continuing to reject the authority of the Word. To be accepted or seem "relevant", certain religious folks compromise on the truth. All of us will stand before God and have to explain ourselves, and I'm glad I won't be in the place of those who wreck the faith of others (Luke 17:2). We need to learn how to defend our faith, beginning in Genesis, which is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines. As many of us keep saying, we need to know what and why we believeand develop critical thinking skills so we can spot the sidewinders who seek to destroy our faith. While we still have free speech and free thought, we must persevere for the name and glory of Jesus Christ. I have some material for you to read and hear if you've a mind to. I hope you do. First, what started me on this was Albert Mohler's The Briefing podcast. You can listen to that or read the transcript here. Second, Janet Mefferd interviewed Alex Schadenberg from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. You can listen to the interview at this link on SoundCloud (free to listen online, downloading requires a free SoundCloud account). Finally, I want to present you with an important article. Click on "Forced abortion and euthanasia? — ‘Bioethicists’ want to force doctors to murder". Be equipped, and stand firm. Secularists are on the warpath.
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
