[   0 →    7]  Hello, and welcome to episode 11 of Foundations Restored, a Catholic perspective on origins.
[   7 →   11]  I'm your host Keith Jones.
[  11 →   16]  This is the first of three episodes presented in four parts exploring the devastating historical
[  16 →   20]  consequences of evolutionary thought.
[  20 →   25]  In this episode you will see as completely false the claim that the question of origins
[  25 →   30]  is only an academic matter that has little bearing on the real world, the eternal destiny
[  30 →   35]  of millions of souls, and the current crisis of faith within the church.
[  35 →   41]  As you digest the material in these episodes, ponder how different world history would have
[  41 →   47]  been if Darwinism had been correctly seen as a deception used to destroy the foundations
[  47 →   49]  of Christianity.
[  77 →   99]  The publication of the Origin of the Species in 1859 created an immediate impact that was
[  99 →  106]  felt throughout the Western world, but it was in Germany where the impact was most significant.
[ 106 →  113]  This impact was primarily due to the influence of Ernst Haeckel, the naturalist and philosopher
[ 113 →  117]  previously profiled.
[ 117 →  123]  As noted by Darwin's son, editor of Darwin's Life and Letters, it was through Ernst Haeckel
[ 123 →  128]  that the Darwinian question was placed publicly before the Forum of German Science, and it
[ 128 →  134]  was Haeckel's enthusiastic propagandism that chiefly contributed to its success.
[ 134 →  140]  In the meaning of the immediate success of his theory in Germany, Charles Darwin wrote in 1868,
[ 140 →  149]  The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.
[ 149 →  154]  This observation was shared by a British naturalist who attended the Congress of German Naturalists
[ 154 →  157]  and Physicians during this period.
[ 157 →  159]  He explained,
[ 159 →  164]  What struck me was the universal sway which the writings of Darwin now exercise over the
[ 164 →  165]  German mind.
[ 165 →  171]  You see it on every side, in private conversation, in printed papers, Darwin's name is often
[ 171 →  174]  mentioned and always with the profoundest veneration.
[ 174 →  179]  But even where no allusion is specially made to him, we see how thoroughly his doctrines
[ 179 →  184]  have permeated the scientific mind, even in those departments of knowledge which might
[ 184 →  188]  seem at first sight to be farthest from natural science.
[ 188 →  192]  You are still discussing in England, said a German friend to me, whether or not the
[ 192 →  197]  theory of Darwin can be true, we have got a long way beyond that.
[ 197 →  200]  His theory is now our common starting point.
[ 200 →  206]  And so far as my experience went, I found it to be so.
[ 206 →  211]  This observation proved all too accurate, as the Darwinian view of the struggle for
[ 211 →  216]  survival quickly seized Germany's military establishment.
[ 216 →  222]  In 1911, an extremely influential book written by General von Bernhardi, called Germany
[ 222 →  228]  and the Next War, was published and proclaimed.
[ 228 →  234]  War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life
[ 234 →  239]  of mankind which cannot be dispensed with, since without it, an unhealthy development
[ 239 →  240]  will follow.
[ 240 →  246]  The struggle for existence is, in the life of nature, the basis of all healthy development.
[ 246 →  252]  Without war, inferior or decaying races would easily choke the growth of healthy budding
[ 252 →  255]  elements and a universal decadence would follow.
[ 255 →  261]  The natural law, to which all laws of nature can be reduced, is the law of struggle.
[ 261 →  265]  This struggle is a creator, since it eliminates.
[ 265 →  269]  Strong healthy and flourishing nations increase in numbers.
[ 269 →  274]  From a given moment, they require a continual expansion of their frontiers, they require
[ 274 →  279]  new territory for the accommodation of their surplus population.
[ 279 →  285]  Since almost every part of the globe is inhabited, new territory must, as a rule, be obtained
[ 285 →  287]  by conquest.
[ 287 →  293]  War is not only a biological law, but a moral obligation, and as such, an indispensable
[ 293 →  296]  factor in civilization.
[ 296 →  302]  Struggles for peace would, if they attained their goal, not merely lead to general degeneration,
[ 302 →  306]  as happens everywhere in nature where the struggle for existence is eliminated, but
[ 306 →  311]  they have a direct damaging and unnerving effect.
[ 311 →  316]  This Darwinian mindset was the primary contributor to the extreme nationalism that ultimately
[ 316 →  319]  led to World War I.
[ 319 →  324]  As war was declared, German Kaiser Wilhelm announced to the people what they had long
[ 324 →  325]  believed.
[ 325 →  330]  The Reich needs new territory, and due to the perceived superiority of the German people,
[ 330 →  333]  he believed that Germany had a right to take it.
[ 333 →  338]  Thus, any hesitation, any delay, is treason.
[ 338 →  343]  Confident of victory, the German leader proclaimed that it would be all over in six weeks.
[ 343 →  345]  He rallied the homeland, calling them,
[ 345 →  347]  To arms!
[ 347 →  349]  We will hold out to the last man.
[ 349 →  351]  Withstand the power of the world.
[ 351 →  354]  Onward with God to victory!
[ 354 →  359]  The Darwinian beliefs of Germany's military leaders did not waver as the casualties mounted
[ 359 →  363]  and starvation began to threaten those in conquered territory.
[ 363 →  369]  Their mindset was chronicled by Vernon Kellogg of Stanford University, who worked with the
[ 369 →  374]  humanitarian group Commissioned for the Relief of Belgium during the war and happened to
[ 374 →  378]  be stationed at the German headquarters of the Great General Staff in Belgium.
[ 378 →  384]  He wrote the following about his discussions with leading Germany military staff.
[ 384 →  389]  The discussions begun at dinner lasted long into the night, and always we talked and tried
[ 389 →  394]  to understand one another to get the other man's point of view, his Weltanschauung.
[ 394 →  399]  If I understand theirs, it is a point of view that justifies itself by a wholehearted acceptance
[ 399 →  406]  of the worst of neo-Darwinism, the Allmacht of natural selection applied rigorously to
[ 406 →  409]  human life and society and culture.
[ 409 →  412]  Professor von Flussen is a biologist.
[ 412 →  412]  So am I.
[ 412 →  417]  So we talked out the biological argument for war, and especially for this war.
[ 417 →  422]  The captain-professor has a logically constructed argument why for the good of the world there
[ 422 →  427]  should be this war, and why for the good of the world the Germans should win it, win it
[ 427 →  430]  completely and terribly.
[ 430 →  435]  The creed of the almightiness of a natural selection based on violent and fatal competitive
[ 435 →  439]  struggle is the gospel of the German intellectuals.
[ 439 →  442]  All else is illusion and anathema.
[ 442 →  447]  As with the different ant species, struggle, bitter, ruthless struggle, is the rule among
[ 447 →  449]  the different human groups.
[ 449 →  455]  This struggle not only must go on, for that is the natural law, but it should go on so
[ 455 →  460]  that this natural law may work out in its cruel, inevitable way the salvation of the
[ 460 →  462]  human species.
[ 462 →  467]  That human group which is in the most advanced evolutionary stage is best and should for
[ 467 →  473]  the sake of the species be preserved at the expense of the less advanced.
[ 473 →  477]  This is the disheartening kind of argument that I faced at headquarters.
[ 477 →  482]  Argument logically constructed on premises chosen by the other fellow.
[ 482 →  486]  Add to these assumed premises the additional assumption that the Germans are the chosen
[ 486 →  492]  race and you have a wall of logic and conviction that you can break your head against but can
[ 492 →  494]  never shatter.
[ 494 →  500]  If allied victory should occur, then he would prefer to die and not live in a world perversely
[ 500 →  502]  resistant to natural law.
[ 502 →  503]  He means it all.
[ 503 →  506]  He will act on this belief.
[ 506 →  508]  He does act on it indeed.
[ 508 →  512]  He opposes all mercy, all compromise with human soft-heartedness.
[ 512 →  518]  There is no reasoning with this sort of thing, no finding of any heart or soul in it.
[ 518 →  524]  There is only one kind of answer, resistance by brutal force, war to a decision.
[ 524 →  530]  It is the only argument and rebuttal comprehensible to these men at headquarters and to whose
[ 530 →  534]  hands the German people have put their destiny.
[ 541 →  543]  Ideas have consequences.
[ 543 →  549]  After four years of war and an estimated 17 million military and civilian deaths, the
[ 549 →  554]  world had tasted the fruit of false Darwinian ideology as it played out in political circles
[ 554 →  556]  and on the battlefield.
[ 556 →  561]  Even so, the First World War did little to stem the enthusiasm for evolutionary thought.
[ 566 →  572]  In Germany, the evolutionary spirit survived thanks in large part to Adolf Hitler, who
[ 572 →  577]  fought in World War I and was outraged that his country somehow lost.
[ 577 →  582]  He was determined to have another go at the survival of the fittest and believed that
[ 582 →  587]  this time Germany would be favored by natural selection.
[ 587 →  595]  Hitler's book Mein Kampf translates as My Struggle and reflects his Darwinian views,
[ 595 →  598]  as does the entire premise of the book.
[ 598 →  599]  He wrote,
[ 599 →  604]  The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness.
[ 604 →  610]  Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable
[ 610 →  614]  higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
[ 614 →  619]  No more than nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less
[ 619 →  624]  does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole
[ 624 →  630]  work of higher breeding over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years might be ruined with
[ 630 →  632]  one blow.
[ 632 →  636]  This planet once moved through the aether for millions of years without human beings,
[ 636 →  643]  and it can do so again someday if men forget that they owe their higher existence not to
[ 643 →  649]  the ideas of a few crazy ideologists, but to the knowledge and ruthless application
[ 649 →  652]  of nature's stern and rigid laws.
[ 652 →  657]  All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died
[ 657 →  659]  out from blood poisoning.
[ 659 →  664]  To preserve a certain culture, the man who creates it must be preserved.
[ 664 →  668]  This preservation is bound up with the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory
[ 668 →  671]  of the best and stronger in this world.
[ 671 →  676]  Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world
[ 676 →  679]  of eternal struggle, do not deserve to live.
[ 679 →  686]  All the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today are almost exclusively
[ 686 →  688]  the creative product of the Aryan.
[ 688 →  691]  He alone was the founder of all humanity.
[ 691 →  697]  Exclude him, and perhaps after a few thousand years, darkness will again descend.
[ 697 →  702]  The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is represented by the Jew.
[ 702 →  706]  The second to last paragraph in Mein Kampf concludes.
[ 706 →  712]  A state which in this age of racial poisoning dedicates itself to the care of its best racial
[ 712 →  717]  elements must someday become lord of the earth.
[ 717 →  722]  With the intellectual power of Darwin, Heckel, Nietzsche, and the German academics supporting
[ 722 →  727]  Hitler's views, World War II became all but inevitable.
[ 731 →  733]  Again, ideas have consequences.
[ 733 →  739]  In World War II, the cost of human life was an estimated 100 million military and civilian deaths.
[ 739 →  746]  Estimates are that the Nazis alone murdered between 17 and 21 million people between 1933 and 1945.
[ 746 →  751]  And while the influence of Darwinism on global conflict is easily documented, we must never
[ 751 →  756]  forget that behind the conflicts were millions of individuals with immortal souls who were
[ 756 →  761]  deceived by Darwinism or directly impacted by evolutionary thought.
[ 762 →  769]  Many Catholics know that St. Maximilian Kolbe was arrested by the Gestapo in 1941 and later
[ 769 →  772]  placed in the German concentration camp of Auschwitz.
[ 772 →  779]  He became prisoner number 16670 due primarily to his writings against the Nazis.
[ 779 →  782]  These writings included the rejection of Darwinism.
[ 782 →  787]  When ten prisoners were selected by the Nazi guards to die after three prisoners escaped,
[ 787 →  792]  Fr. Kolbe volunteered to replace the man crying out in despair,
[ 792 →  794]  my wife, my children.
[ 794 →  800]  Fr. Kolbe was put in a small cell with the other prisoners and all were denied food and water.
[ 800 →  804]  One by one they died over a two-week period.
[ 804 →  810]  Fr. Kolbe ministered to all during the final days and when he alone remained alive, the
[ 810 →  815]  guards gave him a lethal injection on August 14, 1941.
[ 815 →  822]  He was canonized on October 10, 1982 by Pope St. John Paul II.
[ 822 →  828]  While many viewers are familiar with St. Kolbe, they may not know the story of Rudolf Hus,
[ 828 →  830]  the commandant of Auschwitz.
[ 830 →  835]  Like Fr. Kolbe, Hus was raised in a strong Catholic home where his parents hoped that
[ 835 →  837]  he would become a priest.
[ 837 →  842]  Like Fr. Kolbe, he was devoted to and would make great sacrifices for causes he believed
[ 842 →  847]  to be true and Hus would have agreed with Fr. Kolbe, who wrote,
[ 847 →  851]  Dear brothers, be blindly obedient in every instance.
[ 851 →  858]  But in 1922, the young Rudolf Hus joined the Nazi party after hearing Hitler speak.
[ 858 →  865]  He soon became immersed in Nazi terror tactics and became a member of the SS in 1934.
[ 865 →  871]  In World War II, he was stationed at Dachau concentration camp in 1934.
[ 871 →  878]  Sachsenhausen in 1938 and then was given command of Auschwitz in May 1940.
[ 878 →  885]  In June of 1941, two months before Fr. Kolbe was put to death, Hus was given personal orders
[ 885 →  888]  to help implement the final solution.
[ 888 →  892]  At the Nuremberg trials, Hus testified to the following,
[ 892 →  899]  I commanded Auschwitz until the 1st of December 1943 and estimate that at least 2,500,000
[ 899 →  904]  victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning and at least another
[ 904 →  910]  half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000.
[ 910 →  913]  Technically, it wasn't so hard.
[ 913 →  917]  It would not have been hard to exterminate even greater numbers.
[ 917 →  919]  The killing itself took the least time.
[ 919 →  922]  You could dispose of 2,000 head in half an hour.
[ 922 →  924]  But it was the burning that took all the time.
[ 924 →  926]  The killing was easy.
[ 926 →  929]  You didn't even need guards to drive them into the chambers.
[ 929 →  934]  They just went in, expecting to take showers and instead of water, we turned on poison gas.
[ 934 →  937]  The whole thing went very quickly.
[ 937 →  940]  We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped.
[ 940 →  945]  After the bodies were removed, our special commandos took off the rings and extracted
[ 945 →  948]  the gold from the teeth of the corpses.
[ 948 →  954]  While other estimates suggest that Hus' estimates are inflated, there is no doubt
[ 954 →  959]  that the death total from Nazi concentration camps was enormous.
[ 959 →  966]  On April 2, 1947, Hus was sentenced to hang and in his final days he reflected on the
[ 966 →  970]  errant worldview that led him away from the Catholic faith.
[ 970 →  973]  In his last letters, he explained to his wife,
[ 974 →  980]  During my long isolated sojourn in prison, I have had ample time and peace to reflect
[ 980 →  982]  thoroughly on my whole life.
[ 982 →  988]  I see today very clearly what for me is very hard and bitter, that the whole ideology and
[ 988 →  994]  the whole world in which I believed so firmly was resting upon completely false foundations
[ 994 →  997]  and certainly had to fall into ruin someday.
[ 998 → 1003]  Likewise, did not my fall from faith in God depend wholly on my false foundations?
[1003 → 1005]  This was very difficult to overcome.
[1006 → 1009]  Nevertheless, I have recovered my faith in God.
[1009 → 1012]  And to his children, he wrote,
[1012 → 1018]  The greatest mistake in my life was that whatever came from higher authority, I trusted blindly.
[1018 → 1022]  I did not dare have the least doubts as to the validity of a given order.
[1023 → 1029]  Go through life with an open mind, and all that you undertake, direct yourself
[1029 → 1034]  not only with your understanding, but particularly pay attention to the voice of your heart.
[1034 → 1041]  The Commandant's ability to finally perceive the false ideas that led him astray was aided
[1041 → 1046]  by the treatment he received from the Polish and Catholic guards who watched over him.
[1048 → 1049]  Haas wrote of them,
[1049 → 1055]  In spite of everything that's happened, yet they always see in me a human being.
[1057 → 1061]  The contrast with the Nazi Darwinian view of mankind was so clear,
[1061 → 1068]  the Nazi Darwinian view of mankind was stark, and ultimately too profound for Haas to reject.
[1070 → 1077]  By the grace of God, six days before he was hanged to death on April 16, 1947,
[1078 → 1082]  Rudolf Haas received the sacrament of penance from a Catholic priest
[1083 → 1085]  and received Holy Communion the following day.
[1087 → 1090]  He was 47 years old when he was executed,
[1091 → 1092]  as was Father Kolbe.
[1099 → 1106]  Leveraging the Darwinian deception to justify evil was not limited to Germany, as Karl Marx
[1106 → 1111]  and Friedrich Engels immediately understood that Darwinism would provide the worldwide
[1111 → 1117]  communist movement with much needed support. Friedrich Engels read Darwin's work within a
[1117 → 1122]  month after its publication in 1859 and wrote to Marx,
[1122 → 1126]  Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.
[1126 → 1132]  Marx read Darwin in 1860. Although he voiced certain differences with the theory,
[1132 → 1133]  he responded to Engels that,
[1134 → 1139]  During my time of trial these last few weeks, I have read all sorts of things,
[1139 → 1145]  among others Darwin's book of natural selection. Although it is developed in the crude English
[1145 → 1150]  style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.
[1151 → 1158]  Marx attended lectures by Thomas Huxley and in early 1861 wrote another confidant,
[1158 → 1163]  Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the
[1163 → 1168]  class struggle in history. Despite all deficiencies, not only is Darwin's book a
[1168 → 1173]  deathblow dealt here for the first time to teleology and the natural science,
[1173 → 1176]  but their rational meaning is empirically explained.
[1177 → 1180]  At Marx's graveside, Engels declared,
[1181 → 1185]  Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature,
[1185 → 1189]  so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.
[1190 → 1195]  The utility of Darwinism was well understood by the leaders of the communist revolutions
[1195 → 1202]  in China and Russia. In China, Mao Zedong regarded Darwinism as the foundation of
[1202 → 1207]  Chinese scientific socialism. This was testified to by Bishop Cuthbert O'Gara,
[1207 → 1216]  a Catholic missionary in China, from 1924 to 1953, the last two years of which were spent in prison.
[1216 → 1218]  Bishop O'Gara explained,
[1218 → 1223]  When the communist troops overran my diocese, they were followed in very short order by the
[1223 → 1229]  propaganda corps, the civilian brand of the Red Forces. The entire population was immediately
[1229 → 1235]  organized, and everyone, for a week or more, was forced to attend the seminar and in servile
[1235 → 1243]  submission listen to the official communist line. Now what, I ask, was the first lesson given to the
[1243 → 1249]  indoctrinees? One might have supposed that this would have been some pearl of wisdom let drop by
[1249 → 1255]  Marx, Lenin, or Stalin. Such, however, was not the case. The very first, the fundamental lesson
[1255 → 1264]  given was man's descent from the ape, Darwinism. At first, this maneuver amazed me. Later on,
[1264 → 1270]  when in a red jail, the reason for this unanticipated tactic became very obvious to me.
[1270 → 1276]  By that time, I knew very well that the primary purpose of the people's government in Peking
[1276 → 1282]  was to extricate all religious belief and practice. Religion must be destroyed.
[1283 → 1291]  Darwinism negates God, the human soul, the afterlife. Into this vacuum, communism enters
[1291 → 1298]  as the be-all and the end-all of the intellectual slavery it has created. In the red prison in which
[1298 → 1305]  I was held, the slogan, bring your mind over to us and all your troubles will end, was hammered
[1305 → 1309]  into the minds of the prisoners with brutal and numbing monotony.
[1313 → 1319]  And again, lies have consequences. Estimates are that 38 million or more died under the Chinese
[1319 → 1328]  communists. In Russia, the Bolshevik revolution would result in a communist government led by
[1328 → 1337]  Vladimir Lenin from 1917 to 1924. On his desk, Lenin displayed a sculpture of an ape holding
[1337 → 1343]  a human skull and sitting on top of a stack of books that included the origin of species.
[1343 → 1347]  As explained by John Koster in The Atheist Syndrome,
[1347 → 1353]  The ape and the skull were a symbol of his faith, the Darwinian faith that man is a brute,
[1353 → 1360]  the world is a jungle and individual lives are irrelevant. Lenin was probably not an instinctively
[1360 → 1365]  vicious man, though he certainly ordered a great many vicious measures. Perhaps the ape and the
[1365 → 1371]  skull were invoked to remind him that, in the world according to Darwin, man's brutality to
[1371 → 1377]  man is inevitable. In his struggle to bring about the worker's paradise through scientific means,
[1377 → 1384]  he ordered a great many deaths. The ape and the skull may have helped him stifle whatever kindly
[1384 → 1388]  or humane impulses were left over from a wholesome childhood.
[1390 → 1398]  Joseph Stalin, who ruled Russia from the mid-1920s to 1953, was also a Darwinist and lost his faith
[1398 → 1405]  when he read Darwin as a young student in Gori. In a book approved by Stalin, his loss of faith
[1405 → 1411]  is explained. At a very early age, he developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He
[1411 → 1417]  began to read Darwin and became an atheist. A boyhood friend of Stalin's relates,
[1418 → 1423]  I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out and after a moment's silence said,
[1423 → 1430]  you know, they are fooling us. There is no God. I was astonished at these words. I had never heard
[1430 → 1437]  anything like it before. How can you say such things? I exclaimed. I'll lend you a book to read.
[1437 → 1441]  It will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine.
[1441 → 1448]  And all this talk about God is sheer nonsense, Joseph said. What book is that? I inquired.
[1448 → 1458]  Darwin, you must read it. Joseph impressed on me. In 1894, Stalin entered Tiflis Theological Seminary.
[1458 → 1462]  One of Stalin's fellow students recalls of these days at the seminary.
[1462 → 1467]  We youngsters had a passionate thirst for knowledge. In order to disabuse the minds of
[1467 → 1473]  our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to equate ourselves
[1473 → 1479]  with the geological origin and age of the earth and be able to prove them in argument. We had to
[1479 → 1485]  familiarize ourselves with Darwin's teachings. I recall that we read Lyell's Antiquity of Man
[1485 → 1490]  and Darwin's Descent of Man. We gradually proceeded to a study of the development of
[1490 → 1496]  class society which led us to the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Comrade Stalin brought
[1496 → 1502]  these books to our notice. The first thing we had to do, he would say, was to become atheists.
[1503 → 1509]  Many of us began to acquire a materialistic outlook and to ignore theological subjects.
[1509 → 1514]  Our reading in the most diverse branches of science prepared their minds for the reception
[1514 → 1521]  of Marxist ideas. Every book we read, whether on archaeology, geology, astronomy,
[1521 → 1526]  or primitive civilization, helped to confirm us in the truth of Marxism.
[1529 → 1535]  Once more, ideas have consequences. Estimates are that some 62 million citizens and foreigners
[1535 → 1543]  died under the communist rule in Russia between 1917 and 1987. In total, approximately 100 million
[1543 → 1548]  were killed under the Russian and Chinese communist regimes. Estimates are that when
[1548 → 1552]  including other communist nations, the death toll is approximately 150 million.
[1557 → 1562]  When discussing the historical influence of Darwinism, a common mistake is to view the
[1562 → 1569]  influence as the thing of the past and to conclude that mankind is now beyond all the negative
[1569 → 1576]  impacts. Unfortunately, this view does not conform with reality as we will now explain.
[1578 → 1585]  In Britain, a cousin of Darwin's named Francis Galton was immediately impacted by Darwin's work
[1585 → 1593]  and Galton's own words. The publication in 1859 of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made a
[1593 → 1598]  marked epoch in my own mental development as it did in that of human thought generally.
[1599 → 1604]  Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke
[1604 → 1609]  and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose
[1609 → 1614]  positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science.
[1616 → 1623]  Galton's particular contribution to the horrors of the 20th and 21st centuries is called eugenics,
[1623 → 1628]  a term that means well-born and implies that those who are fit and are favored by natural
[1628 → 1635]  selection should be allowed to thrive at the expense of the unfit. Galton thought it possible
[1635 → 1641]  to accelerate human evolution through deliberate intervention, much in the way that the artificial
[1641 → 1648]  breeding of dogs and horses can produce animals with desirable characteristics. He wondered,
[1648 → 1653]  could not the race of men be improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the
[1653 → 1661]  desirables multiplied? In 1869, Galton published Hereditary Genius in which he speculated,
[1662 → 1667]  If talented men were mated with talented women of the same mental and physical characters as
[1667 → 1672]  themselves, generation after generation, we might produce a highly bred human race,
[1673 → 1678]  with no more tendency to revert to meaner ancestral types than is shown by our long
[1678 → 1686]  established breeds of racehorses and foxhounds. The widespread social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer
[1686 → 1692]  contributed to public acceptance of Galton's views. In the study of sociology, Spencer warned,
[1693 → 1699]  Fostering the good for nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty. It is a
[1699 → 1704]  deliberate storing up of miseries for future generations. There is no greater curse to
[1704 → 1710]  posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles and idlers
[1710 → 1717]  and criminals. To aid the bad in multiplying is, in effect, the same as maliciously providing
[1717 → 1725]  for our descendants a multitude of enemies. This perspective emerged when in Britain and
[1725 → 1730]  elsewhere the birth rate was lower in the better educated middle and upper classes than in the
[1730 → 1737]  lower classes. It was widely feared that the unfit and less capable lower class would overwhelm the
[1737 → 1742]  eugenic members of society, resulting in degradation of the general population.
[1743 → 1748]  This fear helped propel eugenics to a national and international movement.
[1748 → 1754]  Among the new devotees was Carl Pearson, a statistician at London's University College.
[1754 → 1760]  In the mid-1890s, Pearson began conducting eugenics-related research at his biometric
[1760 → 1766]  laboratory. In 1904, Galton established a research fellowship in national eugenics at
[1766 → 1773]  University College. From this arose the Eugenics Record Office, which was dedicated to recording
[1773 → 1780]  the pedigrees of able families and determining how to identify the eugenic. Over the next decade,
[1780 → 1786]  the office and affiliated organizations produced hundreds of works on eugenics for the government
[1786 → 1792]  and the general public. In 1907, there arose in Britain the Eugenics Education Society.
[1792 → 1799]  Its purpose, stated one member, is to stir up interest and is, on the whole, frankly, propagandist.
[1799 → 1805]  The propaganda was intended to place eugenic considerations at the forefront of public
[1805 → 1811]  discussion of matters pertaining to human population. The society soon led to the local
[1811 → 1817]  eugenic groups in the U.S. and the 1923 founding of the American Eugenics Society.
[1817 → 1824]  The eugenic movement went in many directions over subsequent years, but one constant remained,
[1824 → 1831]  the acknowledged debt to Darwin and Galton. For example, in the 1930 presidential address
[1831 → 1836]  of the Eugenics Research Association, Dr. Clarence Campbell said,
[1836 → 1841]  The great importance of the contributions of Charles Darwin to human thought has been overlooked
[1841 → 1847]  by all, save a few. Darwin clearly discerned that human evolution and the earthly future
[1847 → 1852]  of humanity rested largely within the power of man himself, and depended upon human knowledge
[1852 → 1859]  human judgment, and human action. Darwin presented a new conception of life to intelligent men.
[1860 → 1866]  For the old concept of a benign providence was inevitably substituted with one that humanity
[1866 → 1871]  itself had been granted, and came to possess some measure of the power of determining its future.
[1872 → 1877]  Among the very first to seize the momentous human import of Darwin's discoveries
[1877 → 1879]  was Francis Galton.
[1879 → 1884]  Because of the global acceptance of Darwinism, eugenics quickly spread to all western countries,
[1884 → 1890]  including the United States, where 350 universities offered coursework in eugenics
[1890 → 1897]  before the Second World War. The eugenic strategies promoted generally fell into one of two categories.
[1897 → 1903]  Some strategies were positive eugenic measures, aiming to encourage the fit to reproduce.
[1903 → 1910]  There were also negative eugenic measures that aimed to limit the reproduction of specific groups,
[1910 → 1921]  population control, deemed to be unfit. In the United States, and beginning with Indiana in 1907,
[1921 → 1930]  28 states passed laws allowing forced sterilization in certain cases. By 1935, another seven states
[1930 → 1937]  had bills pending. Under these laws, an estimated 36,000 forced sterilizations were performed in the
[1937 → 1947]  U.S. by 1941. The legality of such laws was upheld by the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell,
[1947 → 1953]  involving the forced sterilization of a young woman ruled by state authorities to be feeble-minded
[1953 → 1959]  based on input from the eugenics record office. In the decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver
[1959 → 1966]  Wendell Holmes declared, "...the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives.
[1966 → 1971]  It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state
[1971 → 1978]  for these lesser sacrifices, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. The principle
[1978 → 1984]  that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes."
[1985 → 1991]  Inspired by such proactive measures as well as legalistic efforts to halt immigration,
[1991 → 1997]  German eugenicists applauded the United States. In Mein Kampf, Hitler praised the developments
[1997 → 2001]  and wrote, "...there is at least one state in which feeble attempts to achieve a better
[2001 → 2007]  arrangement are apparent. I, of course, do not mean our patterned German Republic,
[2007 → 2013]  but the United States of America." In the United States, eugenic efforts quickly
[2014 → 2019]  expanded to include birth control and population control by the end of World War I.
[2019 → 2026]  Leading the way was eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who wrote, "...the most intelligent members of
[2026 → 2034]  society are the less fertile. The feeble-minded are the more fertile. Herein lies the unbalance,
[2034 → 2041]  the great biological menace to the future of civilization. Eugenics suggests the re-establishment
[2041 → 2049]  of the balance between the fertility of the fit and the unfit." She also wrote, "...birth control
[2049 → 2055]  is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator. The unbalance between the birth rate
[2055 → 2060]  of the unfit and the fit is admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization.
[2060 → 2066]  The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally
[2066 → 2074]  and physically defective." Sanger's book, Woman and the New Race, 1920, revealed her fear of
[2074 → 2081]  overpopulation and a contempt for large families. She wrote, "...the most merciful thing that the
[2081 → 2087]  large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." She opened her first domestic birth
[2087 → 2094]  control clinic in 1916, followed by the launch of the Birth Control Review, and she started the
[2094 → 2101]  American Birth Control League in 1922. This organization was later renamed the Birth Control
[2101 → 2107]  Federation of America in 1939 and Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.
[2108 → 2115]  Thus, Planned Parenthood grew out of the eugenic movement which is rooted in the thought of Galton
[2115 → 2122]  and Darwin. In the aftermath of World War II, the horror of negative eugenics became more widely
[2122 → 2130]  recognized and the movement stalled. This prompted a change in strategy and in 1956,
[2131 → 2136]  eugenicist Frederick Osborne addressed a gathering of the Eugenics Society in London with a proposal.
[2138 → 2144]  The eugenic movement is nothing but a few small handfuls of men in various countries. They are not
[2144 → 2151]  influencing public opinion. The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters. We must ask
[2151 → 2157]  ourselves, what have we done wrong? I think we have failed to take into account that people
[2157 → 2162]  simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character is formed
[2162 → 2169]  is inferior. We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea. They have constantly refused
[2169 → 2175]  and we have all but killed the eugenic movement. We must rely on other motivation. Let's stop
[2175 → 2180]  telling everyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never
[2180 → 2187]  agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where
[2187 → 2192]  they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.
[2193 → 2196]  Osborne was proposing a strategy of crypto-eugenics,
[2197 → 2201]  involving the use of terminology that disguised eugenic objectives.
[2201 → 2208]  The strategy was soon adopted by British eugenicist Dr. C.P. Blacker, who urged his colleagues,
[2208 → 2215]  the society should pursue eugenic ends by less obvious means, that is, by a policy of crypto-eugenics,
[2215 → 2222]  which is apparently proving successful in the US eugenic society. Adopting the strategy in 1960,
[2222 → 2228]  the British Eugenic Society issued a new plan. The society's activities in crypto-eugenics
[2229 → 2235]  should be pursued vigorously. The society should increase its monetary support of the FPA,
[2235 → 2242]  the Family Planning Association, and the IPPF, the International Planned Parenthood Federation,
[2242 → 2247]  and should make contact with the American Eugenic Society, which already has a strong and active
[2247 → 2254]  membership, to find out if any relevant projects are contemplated with which the eugenic society
[2254 → 2257]  are contemplated with which the eugenic society could assist.
[2259 → 2264]  In the wake of the new strategy, the term eugenics faded in favor of the term
[2264 → 2270]  social biology. The periodical Eugenics Quarterly was renamed Social Biology,
[2270 → 2276]  while the American Eugenic Society became the Society for the Study of Social Biology.
[2276 → 2281]  In this manner, the eugenicists were able to detach themselves from the Nazi horrors,
[2282 → 2288]  and the great many who rejected Hitler's agenda but who accepted Darwinism, quickly backed the
[2288 → 2294]  crypto-eugenic objective of limiting population growth through contraception and legalized
[2294 → 2300]  abortion. Among the millions who thought such measures were needed was my own father, Sir David
[2300 → 2306]  Owen, who lost his Christian faith in university and embraced evolution-based secular humanism.
[2307 → 2311]  Later, as he rose to the rank of Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations,
[2311 → 2318]  he was firmly convinced that global access to abortion became essential if overpopulation was
[2318 → 2324]  to be avoided. Eventually discouraged that the UN was not pursuing this agenda aggressively enough,
[2325 → 2330]  he retired from the UN and became the first Secretary General of International Planned
[2330 → 2336]  Parenthood Federation, a position he held for about a year until he died unexpectedly of a
[2336 → 2344]  heart attack in 1970. The eugenicists of this period held as their highest priority the
[2344 → 2350]  legalization of contraception and abortion as these measures comprised the core of their negative
[2350 → 2357]  eugenics program. In the US, contraception was widely available in the 1950s and became a
[2357 → 2363]  constitutional right in an arranged court case that resulted in the 1965 Supreme Court decision,
[2363 → 2371]  Griswold v. Connecticut. What remained lacking, however, was the ability to legally eliminate
[2371 → 2377]  unwanted pregnancies, and so, in the 1960s, the primary target became liberalization of
[2377 → 2383]  restrictive abortion laws. Part of the strategy to attack these laws involved the redefinition of
[2383 → 2390]  medical terms to soften the resistance. During a 1959 joint conference of Planned Parenthood and
[2390 → 2396]  the Population Council, it was proposed that eugenic aims would be greatly assisted if pregnancy
[2396 → 2404]  itself was redefined. There, it was advised that implantation of a fertilized human embryo
[2404 → 2410]  should be regarded as the beginning of pregnancy, rather than fertilization itself. A proponent
[2410 → 2417]  explained, the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an
[2417 → 2425]  established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech. In 1963,
[2425 → 2432]  eugenicist Garrett Hardin similarly argued, murder by definition is unlawful killing,
[2432 → 2439]  but we can define murder any way we want to. How do we want to define it? Where do we draw the line?
[2439 → 2447]  Most societies draw it very late, some hours or days after birth. Before this, the infant is not
[2447 → 2452]  a member of the community, and killing it is permitted. Whether the fetus is or is not a human
[2452 → 2459]  being is a matter of definition. It would be unwise to define the fetus as human given our belief
[2459 → 2465]  that the early fetus may, with freedom, be flushed down the toilet or thrown out with the garbage.
[2466 → 2472]  Also during this period, the American Law Institute began targeting America's abortion laws.
[2472 → 2480]  In 1962, the institute adopted its model penal code, a series of non-binding suggested legal
[2480 → 2486]  guidelines for state legislatures. The code pressed for the liberalization of U.S. abortion laws.
[2486 → 2493]  Utilizing the redefinition of pregnancy, the code suggested legalizing drugs or other substances
[2494 → 2500]  for avoiding pregnancy, whether by preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum or by any other
[2500 → 2507]  method that operates before, at, or immediately after fertilization. And it argued for what it
[2507 → 2515]  termed justifiable abortion by stating, a licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy
[2515 → 2520]  if he believes there is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair
[2520 → 2526]  the physical or mental health of the mother, or that the child would be born with grave physical
[2526 → 2532]  or mental defect, or that the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or other felonious intercourse.
[2533 → 2540]  In 1969, Planned Parenthood formally acknowledged its support of abortion. That same year,
[2540 → 2546]  Frederick Yaffe, vice president of Planned Parenthood, outlined a population policy that,
[2546 → 2553]  among other measures, called for the government to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion.
[2553 → 2558]  Tax married persons more than single, with an extra tax on parents with more than two children
[2558 → 2565]  in school. Restructure the family, encourage increased homosexuality, and put fertility
[2565 → 2571]  control agents in the water supply. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood president Mary Calderone
[2571 → 2577]  declared that we have yet to beat our drums for birth control in the way we beat them for
[2577 → 2583]  polio vaccine. We are still unable to put babies in the class of dangerous epidemics, even though
[2583 → 2591]  this is the exact truth. As the eugenic drums pounded, America soon buckled under the legal
[2591 → 2600]  and medical rhetoric. In 1967, California, Colorado, and North Carolina amended their abortion statutes
[2600 → 2608]  according to the ALI's Model Penal Code, thereby initiating the first wave of liberalized abortion
[2608 → 2615]  laws. Within five years, access to abortion was virtually unlimited in California, where 100,000
[2615 → 2624]  abortions were being performed annually, with 90% sanctioned on psychiatric grounds. In 1973,
[2624 → 2630]  the Roe v. Wade decision secured and expanded the killing of innocent children in the womb.
[2632 → 2641]  It is estimated that 1.5 billion unborn children have been aborted globally since 1980. This number
[2641 → 2649]  is 10 times the combined dead from World War I and World War II. It is estimated that in the U.S.
[2649 → 2657]  alone, the number of abortions since Roe v. Wade exceeded 60 million as of 2017.
[2658 → 2666]  The lie of Darwinism has led to horrific consequences. If you have never considered
[2666 → 2673]  the moral tragedy of even a single abortion, consider the testimony of those who have
[2673 → 2679]  witnessed the practice firsthand. This can help provide a better picture of what is now
[2679 → 2686]  happening throughout the United States. I can remember the resident doctor sitting down,
[2686 → 2692]  putting the tube in, and removing the contents. I saw the bloody material coming down the plastic
[2692 → 2699]  tube and it went into a big jar. My job afterwards was to go and undo the jar and to see what was
[2699 → 2705]  inside. I opened the jar. The resident doctor said, now put it on that blue towel and check it
[2705 → 2711]  out. We want to make sure that we got it all. I thought, that'll be exciting, hands-on experience
[2711 → 2717]  looking at tissue. I opened the sock up and put it on the towel and there were parts of a person
[2717 → 2724]  in there. I had taken anatomy. I was a medical student. I knew what I was looking at. There was
[2724 → 2732]  a little scapula and an arm. I saw some ribs and a chest and a little tiny head. I saw a piece of a
[2732 → 2741]  leg and a tiny hand and an arm. Well, I checked it out and there were two arms and two legs and one
[2741 → 2750]  head and so forth. And I turned and said, I guess you got it all. David Brewer, MD, former abortionist.
[2751 → 2756]  Saline abortions have to be done in the hospital because of complications that can arise.
[2757 → 2763]  Not that they can't arise during other times, but more so now. The saline, a salt solution,
[2763 → 2769]  is injected into the woman's sack and the baby swallows it. The baby starts dying a slow,
[2769 → 2776]  violent death. The mother feels everything and many times it is at this point when she realizes
[2776 → 2782]  that she really has a live baby inside of her because the baby starts fighting violently for
[2782 → 2790]  his or her life. He's just fighting inside because he's burning. Deborah Henry, former OBGYN staffer.
[2791 → 2797]  One night a lady delivered and I was called to come and see her because she was uncontrollable.
[2797 → 2802]  I went in the room and she was going to pieces. She was having a nervous breakdown, screaming and
[2802 → 2808]  thrashing. The nurses were upset because they couldn't get any work done and all the other
[2808 → 2814]  patients were upset because this lady was screaming. I walked in and here was her little
[2814 → 2821]  saline abortion baby kicking. It had been born alive and was kicking and moving for a little while
[2821 → 2828]  before it finally died of those terrible burns. Because the salt solution gets into the lungs
[2828 → 2836]  and burns the lungs too. David Brewer, MD, former abortionist. The baby's bones were too far
[2836 → 2842]  developed to rip them up with this curette and so he would have to try to pull the baby out with
[2842 → 2850]  forceps in about three or four major pieces. Then he scraped and suctioned and scraped and suctioned
[2850 → 2856]  and then this little baby boy was lying on the tray. His little face was perfectly formed,
[2856 → 2862]  little eyes closed and little ears. Everything was perfect about this little boy.
[2863 → 2866]  Kathy Sparks, former abortion clinic employee.
[2871 → 2877]  One central question about the Roe versus Wade decision remains. The question is how the Supreme
[2877 → 2883]  Court could have ruled in favor of legalized abortion as the decision was so clearly contrary
[2883 → 2890]  to Christian principles and given that from its founding America and American jurisprudence were
[2890 → 2896]  strongly linked to Christian morality. In fact at the time of the nation's founding a guiding
[2896 → 2903]  principle of jurisprudence was that man-made civil law must conform to the natural law which is
[2903 → 2909]  written in the hearts of all men and is a reflection of God's eternal law. This principle was found in
[2909 → 2915]  the writings of William Blackstone among others and was rooted in the catholic scholastic philosophy
[2915 → 2922]  of the middle ages. Blackstone, one of the two sources most cited in the writings of the founders,
[2922 → 2928]  declared that the natural law is dictated by God himself and is binding over all the globe
[2928 → 2935]  in all countries and that no human laws should be suffered to contradict the natural and eternal law.
[2935 → 2938]  Compare this to Saint Thomas Aquinas who wrote,
[2938 → 2943]  Since then the eternal law is the plan of government and the chief governor. All the
[2943 → 2950]  plans of government and the inferior governors must be derived from the eternal law. All laws
[2950 → 2956]  insofar as they partake of right reason are derived from the eternal law. The linkage between
[2956 → 2963]  Christianity, the American populace, and American jurisprudence is evident in a multitude of state
[2963 → 2970]  and federal supreme court decisions. In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court found ample support for the
[2970 → 2976]  argument that America was a Christian nation simply by reviewing previous decisions by state
[2976 → 2982]  high courts, including a Pennsylvania declaration that Christianity, general Christianity, is and
[2982 → 2988]  always has been a part of the common law of Pennsylvania. From the New York High Court,
[2988 → 2994]  it quoted, The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the
[2994 → 3002]  general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice. So what poisoned American
[3002 → 3009]  jurisprudence to the point that in 1927 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forced sterilization
[3009 → 3018]  and in 1973 it legalized the killing of innocent children in the womb? The answer to this question
[3018 → 3025]  as with so many others comes down to worldviews and the infiltration of Darwinism. By the early
[3025 → 3031]  1900s, Darwinism would start to dominate jurisprudence and the judiciary became an
[3031 → 3037]  active force in divorcing the civil law from natural law and God's eternal law.
[3039 → 3045]  In 1870, Christopher Langdell became the head of Harvard Law School, a position he would hold for
[3045 → 3054]  25 years. He was hired by Charles Eliot, Harvard president from 1869 to 1909, whose worldview is
[3054 → 3060]  reflected in the following. Physics with its law of conservation of energy, chemistry with its
[3060 → 3066]  doctrine of indestructibility and eternal flux of atoms, and biology with its principle of evolution
[3066 → 3071]  through natural selection have brought about within 30 years a wonderful change in men's
[3071 → 3077]  conception of the universe. If the universe, as science teaches, be an organism which has by
[3077 → 3083]  slow degrees grown to its form of today on its way to its form of tomorrow, with slowly formed
[3083 → 3090]  habits which we call laws, then, as science also teaches, the life principle of soul of that organism
[3090 → 3097]  for which science has no better name than God, pervades and informs it so absolutely that there
[3097 → 3106]  is no separating God from nature. Eliot wanted to expand evolutionary thought into all domains,
[3106 → 3113]  including jurisprudence, and Langdell provided the means. At its core, an evolutionary jurisprudence
[3113 → 3119]  reflects the belief that since mankind and society are the product of evolution, so must the law
[3119 → 3126]  evolve to reflect the changing morals and beliefs of society. Langdell would bring this drastic
[3126 → 3132]  reorientation about through his case study method, in which the emphasis was no longer on the
[3132 → 3138]  straightforward meaning of the law as written, but how a law has been interpreted over time by the
[3138 → 3145]  courts. In practice, this meant that most laws were subjected to an ever-widening interpretation
[3145 → 3152]  and often departed drastically from the original intent. Explaining the case law approach,
[3152 → 3159]  Langdell wrote in 1879, "...law, considered as a science, consists of certain principles or
[3159 → 3165]  doctrines. Each of these doctrines has arrived at its present state by slow degrees. In other words,
[3165 → 3172]  it is a growth, extending in many cases through centuries. This growth is to be traced in the main
[3172 → 3177]  through a series of cases, and much the shortest and best, if not the only way of mastering the
[3177 → 3185]  doctrine effectively, is by studying the case in which it is embodied." In the Michigan Law Review,
[3185 → 3191]  Anthony J. Seabock explains that, building from Darwin's theory, "...Langdell made it clear that he
[3191 → 3197]  thought that his legal method most closely resembled the new science of evolutionary biology.
[3197 → 3204]  Langdell believed that the law of contracts could be best understood if one were to select, classify,
[3204 → 3209]  and arrange all the cases which had contributed in any important degree to the growth,
[3209 → 3214]  development, or establishment of any of its essential doctrines. By treating doctrine as an
[3214 → 3220]  organic living thing, Langdell saw himself as making a dramatic break with the Blackstonian
[3220 → 3226]  treaties tradition that had dominated American law schools throughout the early and middle 19th century."
[3226 → 3235]  As the nation's leading law schools followed Langdell, it was inevitable that the nation's
[3235 → 3241]  highest court would eventually be occupied by like-minded justices. Leading the way was one
[3241 → 3248]  of Langdell's students, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who served on the Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932.
[3249 → 3254]  In 1896, Holmes wrote in the Harvard Law Review, "...the development of our law has gone on for
[3254 → 3259]  nearly a thousand years, like the development of a plant, each generation taking the inevitable
[3259 → 3267]  next step, mind, like matter, simply obeying a law of spontaneous growth. We do not realize how
[3267 → 3273]  large a part of our law is open to reconsideration upon a slight change in the habit of the public
[3274 → 3281]  mind. No concrete proposition is self-evident. An evolutionist will hesitate to affirm universal
[3281 → 3287]  validity for his social ideals. He is content if he can prove them best for here and now."
[3288 → 3293]  To Holmes, the evolutionary direction that jurisprudence must take was clear.
[3293 → 3299]  "...I think it desirable at once to point out and dispel a confusion between morality and law.
[3300 → 3306]  For my own part, I often doubt whether it would not be a gain if every word of moral significance
[3306 → 3313]  could be banished from the law altogether. I look forward to a time when we shall spend our energy
[3313 → 3320]  on a study of the ends sought to be attained and the reasons for desiring them." Holmes considered
[3320 → 3326]  the courts, as expounders of the Constitution, to be the scalpel that would sever law and morality.
[3326 → 3334]  The 1927 eugenic decision, Buck v. Bell, authored by Holmes, resulted from the evolutionary worldview
[3334 → 3341]  as applied to jurisprudence. Another pupil of Langdell named Lerned Hand would also have a role
[3341 → 3346]  in severing the link between law and Christian morality. Hand helped form the American Law
[3346 → 3352]  Institute, which would produce the model penal code that reflected an easing of laws in the
[3352 → 3358]  the model penal code that reflected an easing of laws against abortion and various sexual
[3358 → 3365]  perversions, including pornography, rape, incest, abortion, sodomy, and pedophilia.
[3366 → 3372]  In the area of sexual conduct and the law, researcher and author Dr. Judith Reisman has
[3372 → 3377]  documented that the model penal code was linked with the bogus research and Darwinian view of
[3377 → 3385]  sexuality held by Alfred Kinsey, who is profiled in the next episode. The dramatic shift toward
[3385 → 3391]  the evolutionary view of law and morality is widely seen starting in the 1930s and through
[3391 → 3399]  the writings of Charles Evans Hughes, Chief Justice from 1930 to 1941. Justice Hughes proclaimed that
[3399 → 3406]  we are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is. In Homebuilding
[3406 → 3413]  v. Blaisdell, 1934, Justice Hughes openly debated Justice Sutherland concerning the validity of
[3413 → 3419]  viewing the constitution as an evolving document that could be adapted to the various crises of
[3419 → 3425]  human affairs through judicial activism. The drafters of the constitution, he wrote,
[3425 → 3431]  called into life a being, the development of which could not have been foreseen completely
[3431 → 3437]  by the most gifted of its begetters. Therefore, the case before the court must be considered in
[3437 → 3443]  the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.
[3444 → 3449]  Justice Sutherland countered that the duty of the court is to declare the law as written,
[3449 → 3454]  leaving it to the people themselves to make such changes as new circumstances may require.
[3455 → 3462]  In 1953, Justice Earl Warren declared that a constitutional amendment must draw its meaning
[3462 → 3467]  from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.
[3467 → 3474]  In 1985, Justice William Brennan Jr. observed that the genius of the constitution rests
[3474 → 3479]  not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone,
[3479 → 3485]  but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs.
[3486 → 3492]  Hidden in such elegant phrases was the fact that the world dead and gone was Christianity,
[3492 → 3498]  and with it the view that civil law must reflect the natural law and God's eternal law.
[3499 → 3504]  Increasingly during the 20th century, many judges rejected the notion that citizens
[3504 → 3510]  working through the legislature were capable of passing laws reflecting the proper worldview.
[3510 → 3516]  Instead, these judges believed it to be their right and duty to take the nation where it may
[3516 → 3523]  not go on its own. Many judges became activists whose overriding agenda was to replace laws
[3523 → 3528]  based on Christian ideals with those consistent with humanism and other forms of atheism.
[3529 → 3536]  Many invented legal arguments emerged to circumvent morals legislation in the constitution.
[3537 → 3543]  Above all, the approach involved replacing the original intent of the law and the constitution
[3543 → 3549]  with the judge's view of what a law should mean in light of the purported evolution of social mores.
[3550 → 3553]  In this way, judges effectively became the nation's lawmakers
[3554 → 3556]  in place of the legislative and executive branches.
[3557 → 3563]  Specific arguments used to pass by the constitution and morals legislation included
[3564 → 3570]  1. Arguments that there exists the right of privacy and moral freedom predating the constitution
[3570 → 3575]  that cannot be violated. 2. Arguments that the result of a law is unfair,
[3575 → 3580]  substantive due process. 3. The argument that a law reflecting
[3581 → 3587]  Christian values has no rational basis. 4. The reliance on international law.
[3588 → 3594]  5. The separation of church and state argument, even though this phrase is from a personal letter
[3594 → 3598]  written by Thomas Jefferson and is not part of the constitution.
[3598 → 3603]  6. Skewed interpretations of the constitution's equal protection clauses.
[3604 → 3611]  And 7. The interpretation of the right to life, liberty, and happiness to mean that virtually
[3611 → 3618]  any act of sexuality must be permitted. The judiciary has given one victory after another
[3618 → 3624]  to those seeking to rid America of its Christian past. Some notable examples include
[3624 → 3632]  Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. The Supreme Court adopts the separation of church and state
[3632 → 3639]  argument. Engle v. Vitale, 1962. Prayer in public schools is found unconstitutional.
[3640 → 3647]  Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965. It is unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud over lunch.
[3648 → 3658]  Rowe v. Wade, 1973. Legalized abortion. Lawrence v. Texas, 2003. Struck down a Texas statute
[3658 → 3663]  making it a crime to engage in homosexual sodomy, arguing in part that the statute
[3663 → 3669]  furthers no legitimate state interest and that there is no rational basis for the statute.
[3669 → 3675]  In a blistering dissent, Justice Scalia warned that the ruling marked the end of all morals
[3675 → 3681]  legislation and observed that the court has taken sides in the culture war. He also predicted,
[3681 → 3687]  The court today pretends that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage.
[3687 → 3694]  Do not believe it. Fields v. Palmdale, 2005. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
[3694 → 3699]  there is no freestanding fundamental right of parents to control the upbringing of their
[3699 → 3705]  children by introducing them to matters of and related to sex in accordance with their personal
[3705 → 3711]  and religious values and beliefs, and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other
[3711 → 3720]  fundamental right. Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws in all
[3720 → 3726]  states that defined marriage to be between one man and one woman and mandated acceptance of
[3726 → 3734]  homosexual marriage. As the separation between civil law and Christian morality continues to
[3734 → 3741]  widen, no one should be under the impression that those opposed to Christianity will be satisfied
[3741 → 3748]  when the separation is complete. In an interview with Focus on the Family, Dr. Robert George of
[3748 → 3755]  Princeton warned, No one should imagine that if the Christian community folds on these issues
[3755 → 3761]  related to the family that the cultural left is going to just leave us alone. They will not leave
[3761 → 3766]  us alone. They are coming after us with the legal mechanisms that will be available. They're not
[3766 → 3771]  going to tolerate what they consider to be Christian intolerance, even if it's in the private
[3771 → 3778]  domain. If you look at the law review articles, you'll see that there are genuine concerns expressed
[3778 → 3783]  over Christians being allowed to raise their own children due to the fear that parents will be
[3783 → 3789]  indoctrinating their children into intolerance, which will result in the abuse of people who are
[3789 → 3795]  homosexual, or discrimination against people who don't share Christian beliefs. This is really very
[3795 → 3801]  scary and people don't see it because it's not published in the major newspapers. But if you look
[3801 → 3808]  into the law reviews, you'll see the roadmap being set forth. While there is much more historical
[3808 → 3814]  impact to consider, this episode already illustrates that it matters greatly whether
[3814 → 3822]  evolution is true, and it is undeniable that it has been materialistic evolution that has dominated
[3822 → 3829]  and continues to dominate the world stage. The reality is that those who dismiss the relevance
[3829 → 3835]  of the origins debate by retreating to the position of theistic evolution do nothing but
[3835 → 3842]  put themselves on the sidelines as materialistic evolution continues to undermine the foundations
[3842 → 3850]  of Christian civilization. In fact, those who dismiss relevance of the origins debate and fail
[3850 → 3857]  to scrutinize evolutionary claims have unintentionally, through the resulting silence
[3857 → 3863]  toward a deception that should be opposed, contributed to the spread of false philosophy
[3863 → 3871]  and the ongoing negative consequences of Darwinism. The most tragic ongoing consequence is the brutal
[3871 → 3879]  slaughter of the innocent through abortion. If you are a Catholic, please never say that it doesn't
[3879 → 3886]  matter if we believe in evolution as long as it is attributed to God, for that false opinion allows
[3886 → 3894]  to go unchallenged the Darwinian logic behind the ongoing loss of innocent human life and the
[3894 → 3900]  deterioration of education discussed in the next episode. As we have repeatedly established,
[3900 → 3905]  truth matters and lies have consequences.
[4074 → 4075]  you