‘In the early 1970s, English scientist James Lovelock went public with his “Gaia Hypothesis” – conjuring up Gaia, the ancient Greek Mother Earth goddess, to a largely post-Christian, paganized Western Civilization. All the interconnected ecosystems of Planet Earth are supposedly part of a living, breathing, life-giving Mother. The hypothesis became quite popular – everything happens for the good of Planet Earth!
Here was a throw-back to ancient pagan pantheistic religions – supported, of course, by the “science” of evolution. All the different ecosystems and re-circulations of water, carbon and nitrogen somehow evolved you see in a grand DANCE with the Planet as if part of a living body. And it gave birth to the myriad life-forms, including mankind. Who really needs God?! And, thus, in many ways, Western Civilization – though benefiting from Biblical Christianity – has slid into a Romans 1 post Christian culture where the creature (creation) has replaced the Creator. As the Bible says in Romans 1, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.
From the 1970s on, environmentalism has achieved an extraordinarily high level of doctrinal agreement, zeal, and syncretistic participation from all faiths and educating institutions! It has become a unifying cause to promote One World harmony. This is another example of how a partial truth has been made into a grand lie under the devil’s deception. The biblical truth is that we are stewards, trustees, managers and tenant farmers to take care of God’s property and not abuse it. We wrote more about this in connection with environmental doomsday predictions in our May 2013 letter.*
Sadly, environmentalism from this pagan perspective has become a religion of its own for many people, replacing the truth of the Bible. And in the last 30 years, it seems that all other types of environmental issues have taken a back seat to the threat of man-made “Climate Change”. Virtually every school kid, everywhere in the world, gets some level of training about this “dire problem”.
From 1990 to the present day, the United Nations (UN) has used its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to regularly “assess the threat”. Of course, the Panel has plenty of corruption issues – just like another UN globalist agency, the World Health Organization. The WHO is prominently corrupt in its covering for Communist China during the Covid pandemic. As with Covid and with evolutionism, much conflicting data and expert opinion has been censored out of the mainstream and ridiculed. You can read about an example of such unreported alternative data in our letter of October 2019. And you can read our take on the Climate Gate scandal of 2009 in our January 2010 letter.*
The Climate Gate scandal of 2009 clearly revealed high levels of corrupted information, and it resulted in ridicule and censorship being poured out on the heads of “Climate Deniers”!
In the 30+ years of earnest Climate Change alarmism, every environmental hiccup has been blamed on the increase of “greenhouse gases”. And we’ve seen one discredited prediction after another. For instance: Many beaches and entire islands were going to disappear by 2020 due to rising sea levels. The arctic ice cap was going to become “ice free” in the summer by 2013. We were going to reach a “point of no return” if we didn’t transition away from “fossil fuels” by 2016. But none of these or many other predictions have come to pass!
Bible-believing people like you can look to Job 26:10 for an answer about rising sea levels: “He has compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end”. In his Defenders Study Bible commentaries, Henry Morris affirms this as a statement about maximum sea levels, in line with the Noahic covenant of Genesis 9:11 following the Great Flood.
Climate is so much more complex than what computer correlations and models can predict, especially with skewed data. And there are all kinds of accelerated mechanisms within the creation for balancing things out, such as consumption of CO2 by increased plant growth. The scientists simply don’t have it all figured out. Furthermore, it has become another totalitarian control mechanism, as practiced time and again under international communism and going all the way back to Nimrod at the Tower of Babel. You can read more detail about that kind of thing in our letters from August 2018, May 2019, and October 2020.*
Syncretizing a Mother Earth goddess with mainstream religion took an interesting twist in October 2019. Many Catholic Christians were outraged that the liberal Pope Francis Bergoglio invited devotees of the Amazonian Mother Earth goddess Pachamama to perform a worship ritual to her. It was done in his presence at the Vatican, complete with a wooden idol! Then, one year later, in October of 2020, he issued a silver 10 euro commemorative coin with an image of a woman pregnant with the earth inside her.
Here it is 2022, and we have seen Climate Change hysteria attack food production on the basis of a not-so-well-known greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, released from fertilizers. The government of Sri Lanka collapsed in July of this year in part from banned fertilizers. Their leaders were trying to become a model “green” agricultural economy to please globalist Climate Change groups. And farmers in the Netherlands and elsewhere are protesting their governments’ Climate Change-motivated policies against agriculture. So the “religious” zeal in favor of Climate Change is now driving potential major food shortages. As always, such “crises” play right into the hands of a police state.
Here’s what I think. Instead of becoming the Church of the Green New Deal by being involved in “a dance with the Planet”, we should be involved in “a dance with the Living and Spirit-infused Word of God” – a “dance with the Holy Spirit inside us” as Christians! The Bible says the Spirit is “springing up” exuberantly within us like an everlasting spring of “living water” (John 4:14, John 7:38)!
Our task as Christians is to keep turning away from the many idols that are out there to distract us and lead us into apathy and discouragement. Instead, we can grab hold of the passionate purposes and callings of God, the coat-tails and the embracing arms of the “springing” and “flowing” Holy Spirit within! Let Him inform and energize us! This is the source of a truly fruitful endeavor and of love, joy, and peace forevermore.’https://creationmoments.com/newsletter/church-of-the-green-new-deal/?mc_cid=89a6e82ac5&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Matthew 10:24 “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.”
‘As Christians, and especially as Christian parents, many of us have negative comments to make about what happens in school science lessons. In so many areas, it is often easier to criticize and break down than to build up something new. Many years ago, I came across a fascinating yet simple curriculum model idea that would be of considerable help in many Christian education situations.
In their book, Fighting the Secular Giants, Stephen Thomas and David Freeman outline their ideas for a so-called Trinity Curriculum Model. The three-part framework sees the Father as the source of all things, Jesus as the means of demonstrating God’s love to the world, and the Spirit as the fulfillment. Thomas and Freeman are wise enough to state that this is not an analogy of the Trinity because analogies of the Trinity always fall short of the full Trinitarian doctrine.
For example, suppose we are teaching children about the water cycle. The source concept is that God is the provider of all the water needed for creation. The water cycle therefore reveals God’s wise provision. The means would be the usual experiments about the water cycle, boiling water, condensing the steam, building charts, diagrams, and maps of the process. The fulfillment will be to see how much each student has learned about the process, especially that they have understood what this tells us about God.
‘SNAKE LOVER DEMANDS REVERSE EVOLUTION. Alan Pan, an engineer based in Los Angeles USA has designed and built a device that enables snakes to walk on four legs. The device consists of a long tube open at both ends that a snake can crawl into. Attached to this are four robotic legs, each fitted with servomotors. The walking pattern is programmed into a laptop and the device can be activated wirelessly using a tag attached to a keychain. Alan Pan’s video shows him taking a snake for a walk in the device with the activating tag attached to the device like a dog leash. In order to get the robotic legs to move in reptile-like manner Pan studied the gait of western three-toed skink (Chalcides striatus), a species of lizard with four tiny legs. According to Pan, “They might be the closest thing I could find to an actual snake with legs.” According to evolutionary theory snakes used to have legs but lost them about 150 million years ago due to genetic mutations. After he and a professional snake handler persuaded a snake to crawl into the device and stay inside while it transported the snake on the robotic legs, Pan claimed “150 million years of evolutionary mistakes reversed in a single day”. Alan Pan also commented about snakes: “I actually feel bad for snakes; they lost their legs and nobody is even trying to find them – nobody except for me. When any other animal has deformed legs, humanity comes together to spit in God’s face and we built that animal awesome new cyborg legs.”’ References: Interesting Engineering 15 August 2022; Daily Mail 16 August 2022 ‘ED. COM. Don’t miss it – spitting in God’s face is the real agenda here. Yet this robotic device is a clever piece of engineering and Alan Pan should be congratulated for designing it. The fact that it took careful observation of reptiles walking, and creative design to make the robotic legs should remind Pan that real snake legs were the result of creative design by the God he despises, not the random evolution he has faith in. Furthermore, Pan’s device cannot be said to really give snakes their legs back as the snake is unable to control the device. We would warn Pan not to “spit in God’s face”. If Pan really believes God took legs off snakes, he should investigate why it happened. Snakes did not lose their legs by an evolutionary accident. It was a judgement for rebellion against God, who created all living things. See Genesis 3: 14. This same God, who is Jesus Christ, will hold all those who want to rebel against Him to account when He comes to judge the world. Therefore, we urge Alan Pan and anyone who watches the video about his device to put their faith in Jesus who is also the Saviour, before they have to face Him for judgement. Pan is correct in that snake leg loss is the result of genetic mutations, but that is not evolution. It is degeneration, and is one special part of the overall degradation of the world that occurred as a result of human sin and God’s judgement. There is evidence that serpents (as the Bible describes them) did have legs in the past. Some snakes, such as pythons, have tiny residual legs which can be used in mating, even though they cannot be used for walking. There are also fossil snakes that have tiny legs. See links below. Did you miss these questions? If God removed snakes’ legs at the Fall, why are there fossil snakes with legs? Answer here https://askjohnmackay.com/if-god-removed-snakes-legs-at-the-fall-why-are-there-fossil-snakes-with-leg/. Did snakes really lose their legs, as Genesis implies? Answer here https://askjohnmackay.com/did-snakes-really-lose-their-legs-as-genesis-implies/.’https://creationresearch.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/Enews/enews-20220824.pdf
My dad, an aerospace engineer who worked on the JWST, joined @CenterpointTBN to discuss the first images from deep space and what this tells us about our universe and God our Creator, from a Young Earth Creation theology, which is consistent with the Bible AND science! pic.twitter.com/hpJWTCQ9YQ
‘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
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 