‘Many people today do not seem to realize that the same poisonous philosophy (evolutionism) that justified killing under Hitler1has also infected the American abortion mentality.
According to documents released in February 10, 1992, “Joseph Mengele, the Auschwitz death-camp doctor known as the ‘Angel of Death’ for his experiments on inmates, practiced medicine in Buenos Aires for several years in the 1950s. He ‘had a reputation as a specialist in abortions,’ which were illegal.”2 It should not be surprising that one who extinguished life at Auschwitz would practice a similar grisly crusade on life in the womb.
Humans Emerging From Embryos?
Carl Sagan encouraged the fiction that life in the womb traces an evolutionary history. We “must decide,” he wrote, “what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge.”3 He compared the appearance of the developing embryo to “a segmented worm” and added that “something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian…become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail.” The face becomes “reptilian… (then) somewhat pig-like.” Eventually, it “resembles a primate’s but is still not quite human.”
In the article, evolutionary thinking offered yet again “justification” for extinguishing life thought to be subhuman. This, of course, is pseudo-science and nonsense. The science of genetics has confirmed that the embryo is identifiably human from the moment of conception.
Sanger—“Babies in the Womb”!
Another insidious development occurred earlier in the century (about the time Hitler himself was forming his ideas). It involved Margaret Sanger (1879–1966), the founder of Planned Parenthood (a major promoter of abortions in America today). She has been given the unusual title, “Father of Modern Society.”4 Her evolutionary mentality will be documented below, but first there should be a consideration of her views relating to abortion.
In her Woman and the New Race, Sanger offered a conflicting message about this issue. On the one hand she wrote, “I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”5 Pro-lifers would heartily agree! She even referred to “babies” in the womb—not using the now “politically correct” term, fetuses: “There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion.”5
Her message was inconsistent, however. Not only did Linda Gordon, author of Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right—a major work dealing with the history of birth control in America—indicate that Margaret Sanger “defended women’s rights to abortion,”6 Sanger herself, in the very volume denouncing abortion already cited, wrote, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”5 This hardly sounds pro-life.
Whatever may be said of Sanger’s confused views, her legacy is an organization that certainly encourages and participates in the killing of thousands and even millions of, to use her phrase, America’s “infant members.” What was it about her philosophy that allowed for this?
“Defectives,” “Dependents,” and “Morons”!
Hitler’s link to evolution has already been documented.1 He put survival-of-the-fittest into action, and millions of “unfit” people died as a result. Many Americans believe that something comparable to what happened under the leadership of Hitler is happening now in America. “Babies in the womb,” most of them healthy and fit, have been slaughtered by the tens of millions in the United States of America—1.21 million in 2008 alone!11
What some may not realize is that the same poisonous philosophy that infected Hitler also influenced Margaret Sanger. She said Charles Darwin observed “that we do not permit helpless human beings to die off, but we create philanthropies and charities, build asylums and hospitals and keep the medical profession busy preserving those who could not otherwise survive.” Her view was that such philanthropies and charities were “ameliorative” at best, and that some so-called benevolences were “positively injurious to the community and the future of the race.”
Her following words (content-wise) sound like they could have been spoken by Adolf Hitler himself: “The most serious charge that can be brought against modern ‘benevolence’ is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.”
One wonders how far Sanger would like to have taken her eugenics. She reported a study of the United States Army and concluded that “nearly half—47.3 percent—of the population had the mentality of twelve-year-old children or less—in other words, that they were morons.”7
On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon (cf. above) quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”6 Many years prior, Sanger said, “Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)”8
Birth control for Sanger was “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit.” A eugenist, she defined the field as “the attempt to solve the problem from the biological and evolutionary point of view.” She wanted to change things “to the construction and evolution of humanity itself.”8 She advocated applying “a stem and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”9 Revealing pro-choice tendencies, she went on to promote the notion of giving “certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilizations.”8 Ms. Sanger assumed “the evolutionary process of man”10 and argued that the “intelligence of a people is of slow evolutional development”5 She hoped for a motherhood that would refuse “to bring forth weaklings.”5 Such a motherhood “withholds the unfit brings forth the fit.”5 She wrote of “woman’s upward struggle”5 and described the “lack of balance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’” as “the greatest present menace to civilization.”7
Rejection of the Only Solution!
The Lord Jesus Christ sanctified life in the womb by living there Himself for nine months (Is 49:5, cf. Lk 1:35). He also created every womb that was ever made (Jn 1:3). As the promised “seed” of the woman (Gn 3:15), He came to rescue daughters (like those for whom Margaret Sanger expressed concern throughout her writings) from their burdens of pain, suffering, sin, and death. He came to set them free (Jn 9:36), and many women would testify that they have indeed been set free and will be set free even from death.
Margaret Sanger, however, wrote of a different Jesus—“a Jesus who (would) not die upon the cross.”5 In place of the real Jesus who understands suffering intimately, she chose the hollow shell of evolutionary “science.” Sadly, she wrote, “Interest in the vague sentimental fantasies of extra-mundane existence, in pathological or hysterical flights from the realities of our earthiness, will have through atrophy disappeared, for in that dawn men and women will have come to the realization… that here close at hand is our paradise, our everlasting abode, our Heaven and our eternity.”7 But how is Margaret Sanger qualified to make such pronouncements?
Her present bodily “abode” is very undesirable (coffin? charred remains?), but Jesus is alive with a resurrected body in heaven! After He was resurrected, He proclaimed, “I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death” (Rv 1:18, KJV).
Jesus’ teachings about the future, contrary to Margaret Sanger’s preachings, were neither “vague sentimental fantasies” nor “pathological,” and they will never “atrophy.” Heaven and earth may pass—but His words will never pass away (Mt 24:35). He emphatically said, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (Jn 11:25–26, KJV).
Conclusion
The evolutionary mentality behind abortion is bad science and leads to bad ethics. On the positive side, Margaret Sanger did encourage attention to a very important subject—to what she called “the titanic strength of the sexual instinct.”7 Indirectly, she was affirming the Scriptural truth that “love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave…Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be condemned” (Sgs 8:6–7, KJV).
She sought to promote birth control. The ultimate need, however, is for Holy Spirit control. The Lord Jesus Christ, after receiving from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, shed Him forth upon the earth for the benefit of His followers (Acts 2:33). The only way an unbeliever can experience this loving presence and control is to bow the heart in repentance and faith before the Sovereign Creator-Savior, Jesus Christ.
(This article is an update of one originally published in Impact #27, May 1992, by the Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. Reprinted by permission of the author.)
Notes
1. Paul G. Humber, “The Ascent of Racism,” Impact (Institute for Creation Research, February 1987). 2. Nathaniel C. Nash, “Mengele an Abortionist, Argentine Files Suggest,” The New York Times, February 11, 1992, p. A8. 3. Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, “Is It Possible To Be Pro-Life And Pro-Choice?” Parade Magazine, April 22, 1990, pp. 5, 7. 4. Elasah Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society (New Hope, Ky: CUL Publications, 1989). 5. Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1920), pp. 44, 45, 63, 126, 159, 226, 229, 232, 234. 6. Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right (New York: Grossman Pub., 1976), pp. 223, 332–33. 7. Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s Publishers, 1922), pp. 8, 25, 103, 113, 123, 170-171, 263, 275–76. 8. Raymond Pierpoint, Editor, Report of the Fifth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference (London: William Heinemann [Medical Books] Ltd., 1922), pp. 31, 199. 9. Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April, 1932, pp. 107, 108. 10. Margaret Sanger, Editor, “Self Preservation,” The Woman Rebel, April 1914, p. 16. 11. See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html (accessed December 14, 2011).’https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues
1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
‘Science has an elevated position in Western society. There are those who would try to put Christians down, by saying “You have faith, but I have science”. Science, in the abstract, is therefore assumed to be the ultimate truth, and the universal standard, against which everything must be tested.
This, it is suggested, is because science is tested. As a high school science teacher, I would suggest to my students that scientific processes could develop as follows: The problem to be investigated is stated. A hypothesis is then developed, which seems to explain this problem, and accompanying observations. After this, an investigation—often by experiment—is designed to test the hypothesis. For this to occur, the hypothesis must be testable, and, indeed, falsifiable. To say that a hypothesis is falsifiable does not imply that it is, or even could be, false. It simply means that it is theoretically possible that an investigative result might disprove the hypothesis.
For example, our hypothesis that hot water hurts is falsifiable, given that you could plunge your hand into boiling water, to see if it feels comfortable. In practice, we know that this would indeed hurt, supporting your hypothesis. Finally, you would carry out your investigation or experiment, record the results, and from them draw a conclusion, that your investigation either supports or disproves your hypothesis.
Genesis 1:14-15 “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.”
‘Many secular cosmologists believe that the universe came into existence in a singularity, as a result of a quantum event about 14.7 billion years ago. However, this so-called Big Bang theory is not without its problems. Principle among these is the Horizon Problem, which refers to the fact that Big Bangers cannot account for the Cosmic Microwave Background being the same temperature in all directions. This phenomenon would have required different parts of the universe coming to thermal equilibrium by radiation moving at the speed of light. Yet the maximum distance this radiation could travel is considerably less than the size of the universe.
In the 1980s, theoretical physicist Alan Guth proposed the Inflation Theory. In this model, a very rapid expansion of the universe happened from 10-36 seconds to 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang event. This allowed the entirety of the universe to be in close contact for a while, enabling transfer of energy between all parts of the universe.
There is no scientific evidence for this inflation, which is sometimes called the Big Fizz. The extremely short timescale of the event, at the beginning of a period of extremely deep time, gives the whole theory an impression of being a convenient construction, just to make the math work.
Moreover, it creates new problems of its own. There are several different models of inflation, and recent work suggesting that evidence for inflation is now available, turns out simply to disprove some of the models, without validating the concept itself.
‘The judge asked: “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
The ten words “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, gets to the crucial point in this phrase used for centuries to “quicken the conscience” of those giving testimony in court. A lie is commonly what we might call a half-truth – or even mostly all true! It’s simply not the whole truth. We’ve all seen the crime shows where the evidence all appears to lead to one conclusion. But at the last minute, another piece of evidence reveals the falsehood and the true criminal. Indeed, partial truths are frequently used to support a grand lie.
Thus, the grand lie of evolution starts with the truth of adaptation and natural selection. But then are added untruths, conjecture and wishful thinking on the part of rebellious mankind. And natural selection – to support evolution – becomes a grand lie. The truth is that natural selection cannot migrate out from the created “kinds” – the distinct species groups. The truth is that natural selection and mutations cannot add new creation, new complexity and new information to the genome. It can only shuffle the genetics that are already there!
The truth is that in nature the laws of probability are governed and indeed overwhelmed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – the incessant move toward increasing entropy (disorder). The truth is that new specified complexity requires an outside energy and intelligence! The truth is that creation requires God.
Epitomizing the Nazi genius of propaganda under Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels famously and correctly said: “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will come to believe it yourself.” Herein lies the secret to the grand lie of evolution, and to so much of the other disinformation being thrust upon us in the world today.
Climate Change as Climate Alarmism, for example, begins with the undeniable truth that climate changes. But added to a few truths about greenhouse gases are a lot of assumptions, conjecture and agenda-driven grant money for desired research outcomes with computer models. Another grand lie then becomes the drumbeat that is heard everywhere and has been now for 30+ years: We must unite globally to reset world economics and save the planet!
Subverting democracy under the pretense of protecting it is another grand lie. The lie includes people saying: “We must suppress their ‘disinformation’” (which is frequently truth) “in order to advance ‘our truth’” (which is frequently disinformation). And so they feel we don’t actually need free speech at all! They want more authoritarian powers to target political opponents who dissent from their approved narratives – whether that be disagreement with school boards about gender confusion and race theory indoctrination, or disagreement about COVID policy, or pointing out the various problems in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. They cannot and will not allow true reporting or debate on these issues!
Interestingly, Goebbels also said, “This is the secret of propaganda: those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the propaganda, without ever noticing that they are being immersed in it.” This is the great subtlety of the deception.
These grand lies are from “the father of [lies]” (John 8:44), “which deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation 12:9), i.e., the devil. And they are quite ugly upon examination. Lies, like any evil thing, are inherently ugly. Nobody, not even the worst perpetrators of the worst crimes, would honestly describe immoral acts as “beautiful”. The morally deformed is not beautiful.
Here is where the truth of Biblical Christianity also shines through uniquely. We believe in the Creator Almighty who established His original perfect order and is truly glorious in His perfection. In addition, we define human nature as inherently flawed because of Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey God and to listen to the devil. Understanding the truth about man’s depravity is satisfying because it is true and makes our redemption all the more lovely! Our liberty in Christ from the ugly bondage of evil is truly a beautiful thing!
Truth is vital. Without truth, we are left, in the end, with meaninglessness. We are left unable to detect propaganda, lies and disinformation. Therefore, we are at the mercy of evil, as well as despair. But the absolute truth of God – His righteousness and complete integrity, His omniscience and holiness, His love of liberty and His word – grounds us with meaning, purpose, joy and goodness so that we are able to trust Him and love Him.
We rightly appreciate the created beauty and freedom that God has given us. It is ultimately an appreciation of perfection – a perfectionwhich derives from and is a joyous, marvelous reflection of the truth and nature and personality of the Lord. He is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And that truth is beautiful! As the poet John Keats wrote, “Beauty is truth, truth is beauty.”
Divine beauty is characteristic of God and is vastly superior to even the very best of created splendors. Our great calling is to dwell in His house, “to gaze upon His beauty and to inquire in His temple,” as the Psalmist expresses his desire. The Lord is the purest loveliness and the very essence of joy and wisdom, perfect in all His ways without end.
So it is no wonder that saints throughout the centuries have experienced an inexpressible delight in worship, prayer and studying His word, even though the Truth is veiled in this fallen world. Through the lenses of our redeemed nature, we can appreciate the Lord as we survey the reflections of His creation. We were redeemed for an interior, supernatural joy as we indulge and even over-indulge our new nature! It is the meaning of “to be blessed”.
‘Even nonscientists can face problems for suggesting that there might be a serious intellectual debate over Darwinism. At Baylor University, philosopher and legal scholar Francis Beckwith was initially denied tenure despite an outstanding record of academic research and publications.1 Although Professor Beckwith was well known for his prolife views, he was most controversial for his law review articles and an academic book defending the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism.2 It is important to note that Beckwith did not advocate that intelligent design should be taught in public schools — only that it was constitutional to teach it in an appropriate manner. But that nuanced position was too much for some of his colleagues, who were defenders of Darwin’s theory. Fortunately for Beckwith, after a public outcry, the president of Baylor later granted him tenure.3
A Dissertation in Limbo
College professors are not the only targets in academia who face discrimination because of their skepticism of Darwinism. Students can be even more vulnerable. Ohio State University doctoral candidate Bryan Leonard had his dissertation defense put in limbo after three pro-Darwin professors filed a spurious complaint attacking Leonard’s dissertation research as “unethical human subject experimentation.” Leonard’s dissertation project looked at how student beliefs changed after students were taught scientific evidence for and against modern evolutionary theory. The complaining professors admitted that they had not actually read Leonard’s dissertation. But they were sure it must be unethical. Why? According to them, there is no valid evidence against evolutionary theory. Thus — by definition — Leonard’s research must be tantamount to child abuse.4
Outside of academia, there have been similar cases of discrimination in government-funded science organizations. David Coppedge was a senior computer systems administrator for the Cassini Mission to Saturn at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab in California. He faced demotion and discharge after he offended his supervisor by occasionally offering to loan colleagues DVDs about intelligent design.5 No one had ever complained to Coppedge about his offers of DVDs, but when the supervisor found out, Coppedge faced a punitive investigation. His employment evaluations, which had been outstanding, suddenly became negative, and ultimately he lost his job. Coppedge’s dismissal was justified as a budgetary reduction unrelated to his views on intelligent design, but that explanation was questionable given the facts of the case.
The Sternberg Case
Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg faced similar retaliation by officials at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) after accepting for publication a peer-reviewed article supportive of intelligent design in a biology journal he edited. A research associate at the museum, Sternberg said that after the article was published, he was told to vacate his office space and was shunned and vilified by colleagues. Efforts were also made by administrators to discover Sternberg’s personal religious and political beliefs.6 Investigators for the U.S. Office of Special Counsel concluded that “it is…clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Dr. Sternberg]…out of the [Smithsonian].”7
Smithsonian officials denied any wrongdoing, but Sternberg was demoted from a research associate to a research collaborator without explanation.8 A 17-month investigation by subcommittee staff of the House Committee on Government Reform subsequently confirmed and elaborated on the previous findings of the US Office of Special Counsel. In a detailed report released to the public, subcommittee investigators concluded that they had uncovered “substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers.”9
Congressional investigators further accused NMNH officials of conspiring “on government time and using government emails…with the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE)…to publicly smear and discredit Dr. Sternberg with false and defamatory information.”10 The NCSE even provided a set of “‘talking points’ to…NMNH officials on how to discredit both Sternberg and the Meyer article.” In addition, the NCSE was asked by senior museum administrator Dr. Hans Sues “to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities…The clear purpose of having the NCSE monitor Dr. Sternberg’s outside activities was to find a way to dismiss him.”11 Congressional investigators concluded that “the extent to which NMNH officials colluded on government time and with government resources with the NCSE to publicly discredit Dr. Sternberg’s scientific and professional integrity and investigate opportunities to dismiss him is alarming.”12
When asked about Sternberg’s plight by the Washington Post, Eugenie Scott of the NCSE seemed to suggest that Sternberg was lucky more was not done to get rid of him: “If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?”13
Teachers at Risk
Science teachers in K-12 schools also face challenges if they criticize Darwinian theory. In Minnesota, high school teacher Rodney LeVake was removed from teaching biology after expressing doubts about Darwin’s theory. LeVake, who holds a master’s degree in biology, agreed to teach evolution as required in the district’s curriculum, but said he wanted to “accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory.”14
In Washington State, longtime high school biology teacher Roger DeHart faced continuing harassment from pro-Darwin activists, who succeeded in getting his school district to prohibit him from discussing scientific criticisms of modern Darwinian theory with his students. DeHart was even banned from sharing mainstream science publications with students that corrected textbook errors about evolution. Although DeHart complied with his district’s gag order, ultimately, he was removed from teaching biology. When he took a job in an adjoining school district so that he could continue to teach biology, the harassment continued. He was eventually reassigned from teaching biology in that district as well, even though there were no allegations by his new district that he was not following the prescribed curriculum. DeHart finally was driven from public education altogether.15
See, for example, Francis J. Beckwith, Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003); Francis J. Beckwith, “Science and Religion Twenty Years After McLean v. Arkansas: Evolution, Public Education, and the New Challenge of Intelligent Design,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 26 (Spring 2003), 455-499; Francis J. Beckwith, “Public Education, Religious Establishment, and the Challenge of Intelligent Design,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy 17 (2003), 461-519; Francis J. Beckwith, “A Liberty Not Fully Evolved?: The Case of Rodney LeVake and the Right of Public School Teachers to Criticize Darwinism,” San Diego Law Review 39 (November/December 2002), 1311-1325.
For information about the Bryan Leonard case, see Catherine Candinsky, “Evolution debate re-emerges: Doctoral student’s work was possibly unethical, OSU professors argue,” The Columbus Dispatch (June 9, 2005); “Attack on OSU Graduate Student Endangers Academic Freedom,” Discovery Institute (April 18, 2005), https://www.discovery.org/a/2661/ (accessed November 24, 2020); “Professors Defend Ohio Grad Student Under Attack by Darwinists,” Discovery Institute (July 11, 2005), https://www.discovery.org/a/2715/ (accessed November 24, 2020).
For information and documentation about the Coppedge case, see Robert Crowther, “Trial to Begin in Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab,” Evolution News and Views (March 5, 2012), https://evolutionnews.org/2012/03/trial_to_begin_/ (accessed November 24, 2020); “Facts of the Coppedge Lawsuit Contradict the Spin from Jet Propulsion Lab and National Center for Science Education,” Evolution News and Views, March 12, 2012, https://evolutionnews.org/2012/03/facts_of_the_co/ (accessed November 24, 2020); Joshua Youngkin, “Why Did NASA’s JPL Discriminate Against David Coppedge and Why Does It Matter?” Evolution News and Views (November 22, 2011), https://evolutionnews.org/2011/11/what_happened_t/ (accessed November 24, 2020).
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution, Staff Report Prepared for the Hon. Mark Souder, Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources (Washington, DC: US House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, December 11, 2006), 3, 20-21, https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2020/11/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf (accessed November 26, 2020).
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science At the Smithsonian, 4.
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science At the Smithsonian, 5-6.
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science At the Smithsonian, 22, emphasis in original. The congressional report further explained, “Dr. Sues hoped that the NCSE could unearth evidence that Dr. Sternberg had misrepresented himself as a Smithsonian employee, which would have been grounds for his dismissal as a Research Associate: ‘As a Research Associate, Sternberg is not allowed to represent himself as an employee of the Smithsonian Institution, and, if he were to do so, he would forfeit his appointment.’”
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian, 23, emphasis in original.
Quoted in Michael Powell, “Editor Explains Reasons for ‘Intelligent Design’ Article,” TheWashington Post (August 19, 2005), A19.
Quoted in Rodney LeVake vs. Independent School District #656, State of Minnesota Court of Appeals, C8-00-1613 (May 8, 2001); https://web.archive.org/web/20130314100547/http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0105/c8001613.htm (accessed November 24, 2020). Additional information on the LeVake case can be found in James Kilpatrick, “Case of Scientific Heresy is Doomed,” Augusta Chronicle (December 23, 2001), A4. The Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the school district’s interest in maintaining its curriculum overrode LeVake’s First Amendment interest in teaching material critical of Darwinian evolution.
Job 38:4 “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.”
‘Every day, all over the Earth, plants engage in chemical warfare against insects and animals that would eat them. When this drama is described by evolutionary scientists, they usually talk about plants as though the plants were skilled chemists who developed their abilities on their own.
For example, the leaves of the oak tree contain tannins. Tannins form complexes with proteins so that, when eaten, they have little nutritional value. An evolutionary account of how this arrangement came about describes how the trees supposedly developed this strategy for self-defense. Stories like this make one wonder how oak trees gained so much knowledge about animal digestion and chemistry. Some species of milkweed and dogbane produce powerful muscle relaxants that can be fatal to humans.
One might picture, in the far distant past, white-smocked milkweeds working in the chemistry lab. Other “doctor” milkweeds are feeding various concoctions to humans in cages to test their responses. When one tries to account for this without a Creator, the picture can become silly.
The Bible provides an answer that makes a great deal more sense. In Job 38 and 39 the Lord – the Creator – asks Job about dozens of aspects of the creation. In His questioning, He asks Job about the source of the knowledge and abilities found in living things. The answer, of course, is that the creating God, and no one else, designed, built and taught the creation. Other answers simply can’t satisfy.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/plant-self-defense-3/?mc_cid=90ceddb138&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon (cf. above) quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”6 Many years prior, Sanger said, “Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)”8
Conclusion
whatyareckon 