True Colors… The Blatant Arrogance of Eugenics

What do Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA’s double helix, have in common? They both are believers in eugenics.

I’m sure there were many shocked gasps as the story unfolded about the very famous Nobel Prize-winning scientist, James Watson (who was the co-discoverer of DNA’s Double Helix) making the statement that he believes Africans and Europeans have different levels of intelligence. No really. He did make that statement.

Watson was quoted in the London Sunday Times as saying that he did not hold out much hope for Africa, because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”

“This is not the first time Watson’s speaking engagements have caused a stir.” The article goes on to say that “The Independent catalogued a series of controversial statements from Watson, including one in which he reportedly suggested women should have the right to have abortions if tests could determine their children would be homosexual.”

Oh really? I guess he’s counting on finding a homosexual gene for that…

Again, Watson was speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, when he postulated about a possible link between the amount of melanin in skin and a person’s sex drive.

“That’s why you have Latin lovers,” he said, according to some attendees of the lecture. “You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”

What must people think about these types of prejudiced statements by such a supposedly enlightened evolutionary scientist? How can someone who allegedly is so well educated hold such antiquated views about people from ethnic backgrounds different from his?

Let me put forward I believe some of the fault lies with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. The book’s original title was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

The Preservation of favoured races… I would have to assume that “favored races” means for all species, including man. This is an underlying theme for Darwin’s theory. Consider the time period the theory was written in. Whites and blacks were not considered equals in any sense of the word. I’m pretty sure that almost all people in that day thought that way, save a few very passionate abolitionists, both Christian and non-Christian. It was, after all, 1859. But Darwin, with all his “progressive scientific” ideas, was more popular than one would have thought, even in such conservative times.

Things have changed, haven’t they? Maybe not so much. Liberal social groups sometimes use derrogatory statements or photos to get their point across without regard of their appropriateness or their racially inflammatory inferences. For example, below is a photo displayed at a recent “peace” rally:

Sign at a Peace Rally

If a conservative group had displayed a similar sign with a black democratic leader compared to a simian, chances are it would have made headlines worldwide, and debated for weeks on mainstream media outlets, with angry black leaders screaming for an apology (and rightly so!). But this derrogatory, blatantly racist poster was not only displayed in the “peace” rally, it went no further because it suited their liberal agenda and it’s purposes at the time. In other words, the mainstream media ignored it.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was another big fan of Darwin’s theory and the theories that sprang from the philosophies of Darwin’s disciples. Havelock Ellis was one of Margaret’s many lovers, and he was also a protege’ of Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin and the man who systemized eugenic philosophy.

Dr. George Grant, in his shocking 1995 expose’ of the Margaret Sanger the public really doesn’t know titled Killer Angel, says, “…it was not simply politics or sentiment that drew Margaret into the eugenic fold. She was thoroughly convinced that the ‘inferior races’ were in fact ‘human weeds’ and a ‘menace to civilization.’

Dr. Grant goes on to assert, “Her greatest aspiration was ‘to create a race of thoroughbreds’ by encouraging ‘more children from the fit, and less from the unfit.’ And the only way to achieve that dystopic goal, she realized, was through the harsh and coercive tyranny of Malthusian Eugenics.”

Page exerpt from Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review

Once Margaret gained a semblence of stature in Eugenics and socialist circles, she made good use of some of the most hated and powerful figures in history. One of Margaret’s close friends and advisors had also been an advisor to an infamous tyrant murderer named Hitler. Ernst Rudin, who was Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization, wrote an article which Margaret happily published in 1933 titled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need”.

Margaret Sanger held deep resentments toward those she considered “weeds”, and those resentments were fueled into a hatred which spurred her to begin a whole new movement to cleanse society of those she considered inferior. The Birth Control Review which she edited and her organization, the Birth Control League, was the predecessor for today’s abortion mills run by Planned Parenthood.

Approximately 94% of Planned Parenthood’s abortuaries are located in poor, urban areas predominately populated by blacks. Since 1973, a full 13 MILLION blacks have been aborted, with a remaining population of about 31 million… this is about the equivilant of one out of every four black children being killed. (http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html)

Abortion advocates decry attempts to connect much of Sanger’s philosophy with their present goals as an organization. However, recent statements by Planned Parenthood claim to be proud of it’s history and the heritage that Margaret Sanger left for them. Faye Wattleton, one of Planned Parenthoods past presidents, said,

“As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader, we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission; abortion is only the tip of the iceberg.” Faye Wattleton, president Planned Parenthood Federation of America, speech, February 5, 1979.

It makes me wonder what the rest of the iceberg looks like.

Is this the pervasive opinions of evolutionist believers? Probably not across the board. However, the theory of evolution cannot avoid the implications of their theory on society and societies moral choices. Do other organizations also have such inauspicious beginnings? Are there ulterior motives for other types of scientific studies or organizational ethics?

Watson’s comments were not necessarily only a product of his belief in Evolution, but also of the more sinister philosophy of eugenics. Eugenics is the marriage of certain scientific opinions and how they effect some people’s views regarding the inherent value of other human beings. It also gave some people the idea that humans can be genetically perfected, which in kind meant that in order to achieve human perfection, sub-standards would need to be eliminated. Many times, Watson indicated he would like to see certain types of people “genetically eliminated”, such as fat people, stupid people, etc. This would be assuming that genetic markers could be found for each of these “genetic maladies.” It is the basis for a pseudo-science called transhumanism, whereas humans can be engineered for certain genetic strengths. Watson wanted to use genetic markers to eliminate those he deemed inferior. He has been quoted as saying he believed in selective abortion for women who were pregnant with those who would be predisposed to homosexuality, assuming again that a genetic marker for this “abnormality” could be discovered through genetic testing. Other incidences involving Watson indicated a prejudice against people effected by autism and other mental disorders. Apparently he thinks people like himself with their gangly feet stuck in their big mouths are perfectly fine.

It is essential to know our history. All of it. We can’t rely only on what is written in school text books for a full understanding of our past, since more often than not there are political and social agendas that tend to help rewrite history. Not everything is as it seems… everybody has their skeletons. And everybody has their true colors. Just watch closely enough and long enough and eventually they will come out.

The Bible puts all humans on a level playing field. It says that God created man in His own image. The New Testament indicates that in Christ, all are equal and gives equal dignity to both free and slave, male and female, etc. “All are one in Christ Jesus.” Christianity assumes that all human beings are designed for dignity. This is why pro-life organizations are predominately Christian. Many Christians were very active in the Abolitionist movements of earlier centuries, such as William Wilburforce.

“Africa! Africa! Your sufferings have been the theme that has arrested and engages my
heart—your sufferings no tongue can express; no language impart.” William Wilburforce In his 1792 motion for the abolition of the slave trade.

“I confess to you so enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did its wickedness appear,
that my own mind was completely made up for the abolition.” William Wilburforce Speech on abolition of slave trade on May 12, 1789.

Apparently, Wilburforce had a much better hope for Africa then than Watson does now.

For more info, check out these sites:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/theres_more_to_life_than_discovering_dna1/
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/39ba_47e.htm
http://www.worldviewtube.com/video.php/2000/

A site for the history of the American Eugenics Movement:
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/list3.pl

and an active eugenics site promoting these ideas:
http://www.eugenics.net/

The Godless would deny and destroy human rights …. the liberties of a nation cannot be secure when belief in God is abandoned.

U.S. Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson

Advertisements

6 Responses to “True Colors… The Blatant Arrogance of Eugenics”

  1. My Personal “Keep Me Up To Date On The Top News” blog » True Colors… The Blatant Arrogance of Eugenics Says:

    […] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptIt is the marriage of scientific opinion and how it effects some people’s opinions about the inherent value of other human beings. It also gave some people the idea that humans can be genetically perfected, which in kind meant that in … […]

  2. Steve Martin Says:

    Hi,
    I do not agree with the statement that “the theory of evolution cannot avoid the implications of their theory on society and societies moral choices” – at least if you are talking about biological evolution rather than some of the unwarranted extrapolations of it (eg. social darwinism, eugenics). Just because some evolutionists believe and promote awful things, does not mean the theory itself is to blame or should be abandoned. (For the same reasons, Christianity should not be blamed or abandoned because of the crusades). As a Christian who defends the integrity of scripture but also accepts the evidence for evolution, I look to scripture for moral guidance. Last week I wrote a post on this entitled “Does Evolution lead to Moral Relativism?” – you can check it out at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/10/does-evolution-lead-to-moral-relativism.html.

  3. The Reformed Faith Weblog Says:

    Thanks for the comment Steve, however, I did attempt to connect the theory to what many people of the day (and of some people today, as illustrated by Watson’s comments) considered to be proof that blacks were somehow inferior to whites.

    I felt I did make a distinct connection between the two camps in the relationship between Sanger, a vocal euginics devotee, and one of her many lovers. This lover was directly connected with the cousin of Darwin, Francis Galton as one of his students. I believe ideas have consequences, and in the case of Darwinian evolution and one of it’s ideological offshoots (eugenics), I think it had very grave consequences indeed…

    In regard to the belief that Evolutionary theory, which is based in the belief that man came from a soup of chemicals that formed into life randomly without help from an outside intelligence, not contradicting biblical accounts, I respectfully disagree with you. Darwinian Evolutionary theory does not support the Biblical account of the creation of all things living by a sovereign and powerful God… in any way.

    While some Christians might also believe in Darwinian evolution (although I have no idea how they could reconcile the two, but to each his own…) but ALL atheists do not believe in creation and think that man is the author of his own moral system… to govern himself and his society any way he sees fit.

    I think that is called moral relativism.

    Just my opinion.

    Don’t get me wrong – I love science. There are great scientists and wonderful studies that help countless many people. I do believe, however, that there is a group of Darwinian evolutionary scientists who promote a philosophy of atheism and allow their presuppositional worldview to color their studies and their findings. If you check out one of my other posts, https://reformedfaith.wordpress.com/2007/10/13/the-threat-of-creation/ , you can see that I feel this philosophy so pervades our school system and our society that if it is questioned, you are labeled an idiot and anti-science.

    We have to learn to seperate what is true from what is propaganda, regardless of our personal position on any subject. It helps to know our history as well as our science in order to determine the foundations of any organization or belief system. A faulty foundation usually means the building above it is also faulty.

  4. Steve Martin Says:

    Hi again,
    A couple of comments.
    1. re: connection between evolution & moral relativism. People have done the same thing with the bible (eg. Noah’s curse of his son Ham to justify racism). However, they are misreading he bible when they do this. I believe that we misreading & extrapolating from the science of biological evolution when we make it prescriptive (eg. eugenics). From my post (& I’m quoting from someone else):
    “The theory of evolution is merely an account of the mechanisms God has used to create us. It can no more be a guide to our moral choices than Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, or Boyle’s law. Bear in mind, by the way, that scientific laws (of which evolution is one) are descriptive, not prescriptive or normative. That means that scientific laws describe what DOES happen in the universe; they do not tell you what moral choices to make. Many persons make a mistake here by confusing the different meanings of the word law. For example, they’ll think that the law of gravity “punishes” a person for stepping off a cliff. That is not so. The law of gravity describes how an object moves in a gravitational field. The choice of how and where you place yourself in such a field is up to you”.

    2. Re: The abuse of science to promote atheism & indeed anti-theism. I absolutely agree that this is a huge problem. And we do need to weed out the good science from the propoganda. I guess we simply disagree on where that line is drawn. For me, evolutionary science is good science. What is generally termed “evolutionism” is not.

    Also note that Loren & Deb Haarsma, profs at Calvin College, have just release a very good book called “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution “. See: http://www.calvin.edu/news/releases/2007-08/origins.htm

  5. The Reformed Faith Weblog Says:

    I appreciate your comments, Steve. My main points were to expose the ideological stance of certain individuals who have a large influence over society… such as Margaret Sanger and James Watson… and how their belief in Darwinian Evolution fueled their prejudices against certain populations to the point of using their positions as a platform or catalyst for eugenics to be applied as a form of discrimination.

    The study of Darwinian Evolution (in that science assumes change on a minute scale over millions of years) is very much a speculative science… I do think that the mechanisms neo-evolutionists claim were the mechanisms of the beginning of the creation of life on earth have no basis in known science – not only is it only speculation, it also takes the power out of God’s sovereignty and ability to create from nothing as the Bible says he does. But they are trying right now to figure out how it could have happened by conducting experiments on puddles of goo in labs.

    I do not believe that being a Christian means that you have to check your brain at the door. I have looked at all the evidence that most evos claim to be proof of human evolution from chems… and found it sorely wanting.

    The main point I am trying to make now is that science and religion are not related fields in any way, shape or form. This means that one is not required to accommodate the beliefs systems of one to explain the other. Each one independently tries to explain it’s beliefs and findings from it’s own perspective using it’s own methods. Occasionally these two things intersect. However, most of the time you cannot use one to explain the other. Science does not (and should not) pretend to explain the supernatural. The Bible, while it may contain references to science, even scientific revelations that should not have been available to people back then due to it’s advanced scientific nature… even with these special revelations the Bible is not a scientific journal. (I may write a little something about this at another time so I will not elaborate on them now).

    If you try and use science to explain a belief, it is a fallacy in that beliefs are subjective and based on faith. Faith by its very nature should require no proof. That’s what is so supernatural about it… it is beyond anything that can be logically explained. You can say what about science makes you feel like it strengthens your faith, that is valid for you.

    On the other hand, science requires very substantive proof for any theory to be considered proven. Many theories are accepted as fact in that, for example, we see that the earth DOES go around the sun because we can observe this motion every single year, and measure it’s trip using real data we can document. Therefore it is deemed REASONABLE to believe. If we know the properties of a specific physical thing, we can estimate or predict its action or reaction under certain circumstances. We can say that the theory of gravity is true because we see that its laws are universal and we can observe its effects every day. Ideas about gravity have been postulated and testing seems to have confirmed the theory to be reasonably true. The more data that scientists receive and examine seems to prove Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to be completely accurate. The Second Law of Thermodynamics – proven every day. All you have to do is look inside my van for that one.

    I like this perspective by Dr. Allan Sandage (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html )

    “There need be no conflict between science and religion if each appreciates its own boundaries and if each takes seriously the claims of the other. The proven success of science simply cannot be ignored by the church. But neither can the church’s claim to explain the world at the very deepest level be dismissed (by science).”
    Parentheses mine.

    But when people like Richard Dawkins pops off and tells an interviewer that religion is basically fantasy… like all believers are idiots, well, I just consider that as intellectual arrogance.

    The scientific method is a great method – you make a hypothesis, run an experiment to either prove or disprove your hypothesis, and make your conclusions. That’s a rather simplistic explanation, but that is about the gist of it.

    Evolutionary theory, however, is very speculative and makes claims based on philosophies and tries to use science to prove their claims. They use words like “might have happened… could have happened… scientists believe…” etc. and they have to use these words because they don’t know what happened. They make assumptions, and they do it many times based on their philosophical positions, and this is very common. I science you do make some assumptions until your assumptions look like they’re not going to hold water.

    Do I think that people who believe differently have the right to speak publicly about their theories and have discussions about the faith they have in God directing evolution? Absolutely! This is a free society. People have the right to follow their convictions and speak publicly about it, and should be able to do so without fear of ridicule or retribution…

    Unfortunately, there are those scientific “Cliques” that will not allow any questioning of their theory and visciously attack those who try to raise any questions. Those who do ask questions are usually asking them in the interest of academic freedom and because of discrepencies in the theories they are questioning…

    This is something I have a real problem with. We all should have a big problem with it.

    (refer back to my blog, “The Threat of Creation”)

    Anyway, this was almost as long as the original post! 😉


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: