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

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query abortion. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query abortion. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, May 31, 2018

Abortion, Abolition, and Creation

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.


Credit: RGBstock / Jean Scheijen
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!

Thursday, January 19, 2017

The Science Industry Supports Abortion

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 science industry has serious problems with its moral compass, and is becoming increasingly activistic for abortion.
Image credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
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.
To see the examples and commentary, click on "Big Science Leans Pro-Death".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 26, 2013

Evolution, Abortion and Violence Against Women

The real "war on women" is being done through abortion: Women are killing women. And evolutionary concepts are being used to justify this violence.

It is ironic that critics of the Bible misunderstand (deliberately, I believe) that it actually affirms the value of women — sometimes contrary to cultures of the times. In contrast, the evolutionary worldview devalues human life. "Survival of the fittest", natural selection, "It's only a fish going through evolutionary stages" and other excuses contribute to this concept.

In many cultures, women are of lesser value. With the increase of abortion "rights" in the West, there is also an increase in abortions because the mothers do not want girl babies. Here is the real "war on women"! Ironically, abortion is fundamental to "feminism" today, but history shows quite the opposite. What value does society place on women, born or unborn? Biblical Christianity stands in stark contrast, placing value on humans who are created in the image of God.

Lita Cosner writes,
Abortion-rights activists, especially among the modern feminist movement, proclaim abortion to be an important right for women. They often resort to scaremongering, claiming that if it were revoked, it would send the world back to the (largely mythical) era of back-alley abortions, and would represent a huge step backwards for women’s rights.
Later, she adds,
If society cannot interfere with a mother’s choice to abort for any reason she wants (‘abortion is between a woman and her doctor’), how can it be wrong for her to abort based on the sex of the baby? If it is okay for her to abort because she doesn't want a baby, why is it wrong for her to abort because she doesn't want a girl? In fact, the ability to choose the sex of a child is a logical extension of the ‘right to choose’ if that ‘right’ exists. If abortion is not objectionable in and of itself, why should we be troubled by the growing trend of baby girls being aborted in disproportionate numbers? After all, it is the woman’s choice!
You can read, in full context, "An Indispensable Right or Violence Against Women?", here. Then I hope you come back to see the video, below.



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, April 17, 2015

Evolution, Science Bias and Abortion

Much of the secular press in the United States and elsewhere is biased toward leftist politics. Both of these are are in favor of abortion. It should not be surprising that much of the science reporting is also sympathetic toward killing unborn children, and evolutionary thinking is at the forefront.


As we can easily see, much of the secular press in the United States and elsewhere is biased toward leftist politics. Both of these are are in favor of abortion. It should not be surprising that much of the science reporting is also sympathetic toward killing unborn children, and evolutionary thinking is at the forefront.

Evolution has been used to promote abortion, including the infamous fraud by Haeckel. It should not really be that much of a surprise, since morality cannot come from evolution (despite the claims of some adherents), morality comes from God. Evolutionists will even write abortion off not only as a result of natural selection, but even justify abortion for gender selection, which is usually to abort female babies. Seems like the ultimate punishment for the "crime" of being an unborn female.

I recommend that you read "Abortion 'Science' Shows Its Deathly Bias".
  


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, July 4, 2019

When Politics Imprisons Science

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.


Science is being imprisoned by political special interests. This affects all of us, so there is some overlap with science, politics, and creation.
Credit: Pixabay / Prettysleepy2
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:
To read this important article in its entirety, click on "Is Secular Science Re-Opening the Door to Eugenics?"





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Eugenics, Abortion, and Evolutionary Deceptions

One complaint that is raised against biblical creationists is that we're wasting our time dealing with a biological theory, but evolution is much more than that. Not only does it rely on various scientific fields, it is also a philosophy of life. This is ironic, since evolution is based on death. Evolutionary thinking has given us social applications of Darwinian principles in tyrants like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and others. This, in turn, is based on eugenics, where the unfit are disallowed to reproduce — and are eliminated.


Evolutionary thinking has given us social evils like eugenics and abortion, among others. Taking the view that God created humans in his image gives a radically different (and life affirming) worldview.
Image credit: Pixabay / Skitterphoto
The social Darwinism "science" of eugenics was popular in the United States, but fell out of favor when Adolph Hitler used it in his quest for power. However, eugenics never really disappeared. Eugenics has been used under different names, and is regaining popularity again. The worst way is the evolutionary eugenics is used to justify abortion. Taking the view that God created humans in his image gives a radically different (and life affirming) worldview.
Western society’s eugenics disaster of the early 20th century sought to weed out the “unfit”—people seen as genetically dragging the human race down. It flowed from a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. The U.S. Supreme Court punctuated this blunder with the Buck v. Bell decision (1927) that effectively legalized eugenics practices. Though eugenics became widely stigmatized by the 1970s, a captivating fitness-survival-death mindset has endured. These death-fueled practices haven’t missed a step following the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade (1973) decision that legalized abortion, the new eugenics.

The Eugenics-Abortion Link

Early eugenicists won a scientific consensus by using a few strategies. They established peer review to secure credibility, abused peer review to monopolize control, crowned “experts” to project authority, and marginalized dissenters to enforce compliance. Though the public found forced sterilization distasteful, recent research by social scientists Deborah Barrett and Charles Kurzman reveal how eugenicists perpetuated their practices right under society’s nose. They document how eugenics-driven peer review continued by merely renaming the existing periodicals. The Annals of Eugenics transitioned to the Annals of Human Genetics, The Eugenics Review conveniently became The Journal of Biosocial Science, and The Eugenical News/Eugenical Quarterly morphed into Social Biology.
To read the rest of this enlightening article, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Survival of the Fittest, Eugenics, and Abortion".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Abortion and the Evolutionary Worldview

Abortion has roots in the devaluing of human life. The evolutionary worldview does this very thing, and has been the basis of many kinds of evil in the world. Molecules-to-man evolutionary thinking easily supports abortion.
The "Meme" Police want these things to be funny. Too bad. This one is intended to make a point.
Today is the 40th anniversary of America's legalization of the holocaust against the unborn. We hear about "a woman's right to choose" and other emotion-based "arguments" that are quickly refuted. Ironically, "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) of "Roe v. Wade" fame, is now a Christian and pro-life campaigner.

Abortion has roots in the devaluing of human life. The evolutionary worldview does this very thing, and has been the basis of many kinds of evil in the world. Molecules-to-man evolutionary thinking easily supports abortion.
There are biblical and logical reasons to regard human life commencing at conception. Even many rabid abortionists today concede that the unborn does not suddenly become human when it starts to get its oxygen from air, rather than its previous source. Philosopher and ethicist and animal rights activist, Australian-born Princeton Professor Peter Singer, has conceded as much. He also states that the only reason to forbid infanticide as an absolute would be if we were made in the image of God, as was once believed. Since that is not so, he states, and since we allow in many countries abortion (i.e. killing the baby) right until the time its head appears (and for the sorts of reasons—including inconvenience or personal hardship, or just plain preference—that you mention in your email) it would be rational for a society to seriously consider giving parents of the newborn an arbitrary period following birth (say 3 months) to decide whether that baby should go on living. See this article. Singer also points out that similar things were customary in a number of pagan societies, e.g. ancient Rome. Singer’s writings show that his entire ethic is informed and driven by his understanding of evolution, so a rabbit has more rights than an infant in the womb at a certain stage of its development.
Read the rest of "Is Evolution to Blame?" in context, here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Brian Sims and the Increasing Fanaticism of Abortionists

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.


Abortionist Brian Sims is in the news and in trouble for harassing pro-life people. We can learn some things from his diatribe.
Credit: Freestocks / Joanna Malinowska
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!

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Margaret Sanger and the Evil Fruits of Darwinism

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!

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Evolution and Abortion

Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe. I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought. I was the more astonished when I read . . . that he had preserved his belief in God. I absolutely declined to understand how a theory of the origin of species by way of natural selection and sexual selection and a belief in God could find room in one and the same head.
— Leon Trotsky


Eugenics Congress logo
Stop and think about it for a few moments. Masquerading as "science" and "proven fact", the faith-based philosophy of evolution is used as a scientific justification for all kinds of evils in the world. Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Communism, Nazism's extermination of the "lesser races", eugenics and more all evolved from a common ancestor called Darwinism. After all, it's "survival of the fittest", isn't it? While wars, selfishness, hatred and all sorts of other evils exist apart from evolutionism, this "scientific theory" gives a pseudo-scientific excuse for them, and even increases all kinds of evils.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an enthusiastic eugenicist and wanted to "exterminate the Negro population". Evolutionism is used as an excuse for abortion. Follow the excuses: There is no Creator. Life, the universe and everything all happened through chance. Everything came from nothing. You are the product of gradual change, mutations and accidents. There is no purpose, no meaning to your life. Do whatever you can get away with. You came from nothing, so you have nowhere to go. (Atheism has such a compelling message of hope!) Why not abort "that thing" growing inside of you because of that careless sexual adventure you had the other night? Or for guys, why not have her "take care of it" so you don't have to deal with your responsibilities?

Further, evolution tells us "that thing" in the womb is not even a baby. No, they say it's a "product of conception", "conceptus", "potential human" or "fetus". (Ironically, the word "fetus" means "offspring" or "bringing forth"; in other words, it means baby.) Those word games should not fool anyone except people who want to be fooled. After all, abortion is a highly profitable industry based on convenience, immorality and selfishness.

"But Cowboy Bob, what could possibly be wrong with aborting something growing in the womb if it is not even human yet? Science has shown that the fetus is simply going through the stages of evolutionary history; you're only killing a fish-like thing."

Here you go:

Haeckel's Embryo Drawing
Haeckel's faked drawings
In an evolutionary mindset, the unborn have been treated as though they are going through an “animal phase” and can simply be discarded.
Early evolutionist Ernst Haeckel first popularized the concept that babies in the womb are actually undergoing animal developmental stages, such as a fish stage and so on. This idea has come to be known as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Haeckel even faked drawings of various animals’ embryos and had them next to drawn human embryos looking virtually identical. 
. . .

Through this deception, many women have been convinced that the babies they are carrying in their wombs are simply going through an animal phase and can be aborted. Author Ken Ham states:

In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.
Evolutionary views have decreased the value of human life. Throughout the world the casualties of the war on children is staggering. Though deaths of children and the unborn did exist prior to the “evolution revolution,” they have increased exponentially as a result of Darwinian teachings. Source: "The Results of Evolution".
On the other hand, if evolutionism is false after all (and this site has plenty of evidence that it is, plus links to even more information discrediting evolution), you should seriously think about the implications: God is the Creator, he makes the rules, he loves you and you should find out what he has to say.

You have been given a great deal to think about. Here is a video to make you think some more. It takes about a half an hour:





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, October 14, 2016

Human Life and the Cold Road of the Evolutionary Worldview

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.


The evolutionary worldview has heavily influenced global secularization. We have to be steadfast in worsening times.

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 novel Brave 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 facto secularist 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 believe and 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!

Friday, April 8, 2016

Evolution and Moral Relativism

When someone claims to not have a philosophy of life (worldview from presuppositions and axioms), just ask a few questions. You'll find out that yes, they do have a worldview. Everybody has one, even if they haven't written it down in a journal or something. A big part of that worldview is the question of right and wrong. An atheist or evolutionist cannot give a coherent reason for saying that torturing children for fun is wrong, but the Bible-believing Christian has a consistent foundation to oppose it. The atheopath who goes haywire with trolling and bullying biblical creationists on teh interwebs because creationists are "evil" and "liars" — that ornery cuss cannot say why his actions are "good" and creationists are bad, except for his opinion, culture, and relativism — a justification for "morality" that goes up in smoke.


Secular science approaches to morality is based on evolution and relativism, and is irrational. There is only one true source for a moral foundation.
Image generated at fodey.com
Secular scientists and their sycophantic press make proclamations about right and wrong, but contradict themselves with moral relativism. Notice that the secularists are trying to justify homosexuality, abortion, polygamy, and so on are using a leftist perspective? No room for the Creator who gave us the final source for morality in their paradigm! Trying to give a basis for morality from evolution, culture, societal trends, and so forth is ridiculous.
If morality evolves, then why do some scientists cast judgment?

Science reporters occasionally make the case for moral relativism: the idea that moral judgments can vary from culture to culture, depending on what the people in a culture were taught is right or wrong. Live Science, for instance, teaches that “Right or Wrong: How You Judge Others Depends on Your Culture.” But in other articles, they will promote abortion rights, gay rights and other moral questions in an absolutist manner. . .
To read the rest of this insightful but relatively short article, click on "Science Cannot Defend Moral Relativism". 

 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, July 15, 2013

Genetic Fallacy AGAIN, Plus a Cascade of Carping

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 11-11-2015
The Genetic Fallacy is, in simplest terms, rejecting something because someone does not like the source. For example:
Deny Darwin, and invite ridicule. Just ask Virginia Heffernan.

The text in the image shows not only that the commenter does not like ICR, but includes other fallacies as well, including the ever-popular ad hominem. And he wonders why he was banned from the Facebook Page? Seriously?

Virginia Heffernan formerly wrote technology and culture for the New York Times. She admitted recently that she is a creationist. Well, what kind of creationist, I'm not certain. (If she wants to discuss these things, biblical creationists will be glad to assist her.) What matters to her detractors is that she rejects evolution.

This led to a slew of ridicule. Hamilton Nolan of "Gawker" said:
"We are not saying you're a bad person, Virginia, but you should probably expect that, from now on, when people read your musings on, say, the future of internet communications, they might stop, in a moment of gathering doubt, and recall that you are a science-phobic angel-believing climate change skeptic, and that therefore your dedication to facts is somewhat in question."
Let's see... Genetic Fallacy, Poisoning the Well, ad hominems, unargued philosophical bias, Straw Man and simple bigotry for starters. Nolan is demonstrating that he is uninformed about the nature of science, since Heffernan's views of origins have nothing to do with observational science and technology. (Did I detect some appeal to authority there as well? Not sure.) Ironically, Nolan calls Heffernan "science-phobic" for denying evolution, but evolution itself is not scientific.

By the way, the genetic fallacy can work in the affirmative, approving of something because of the source. People listen to Bill Nye the Anti-Science Guy, so when he speaks with his "authority" on a topic, it must be so, right? Check out this article on Nye's pro-abortion Check out this article on Nye's pro-abortion "science" stuff.

Later, Nolan snarked, "This could, and should, erode your credibility, in the eyes of those elitist readers who value things that are based on 'evidence.' So kudos to you for being brave enough to admit to your own hilarious prejudices again common sense". What, she's supposed to cater to "elitist readers instead of all of them?

Evolution flies in the face of common sense from the get-go. Too bad we're not supposed to think for ourselves. When people start with their evolutionary worldview, they defend it with logical fallacies and ridicule. Like certain snack foods, you can't have just one.

Hamilton Nolan, I'm not saying you're a bad person. But when you demonstrate your bigotry, resort to insults, show a lack of knowledge of the nature of science, use multiple logical fallacies in one paragraph — well, people may be reading your material and realize that your dedication to facts (and civility) is somewhat in question.





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels