The More They Know Darwin

The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination

 

According to an international poll released by the British Council, the majority of Americans – 60% – support teaching alternatives to evolution in the science classroom. The percentage is the same for Britons….Of course, the British media reporting this are chagrined. Britain is the birthplace of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, and the official-sounding British Council, the UK group behind the “Darwin Now” campaign that commissioned the Ipsos MORI poll, have spent precious resources educating the world about Darwin. Now some believe the poll shows that efforts by Darwinist organizations aren’t working.

Head of the British Council’s Darwin Now program Fern Elsdon-Baker said, “Overall these results may reflect the need for a more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process.”

While Darwin’s apologists might try to explain the poll numbers as an example of ignorance influencing people’s beliefs, the numbers themselves suggest a different picture.

Across the board, most respondents from the ten countries polled thought that “other perspectives on the origins of species” “such as intelligent design and creationism” should be taught in science class*. When the poll is weighted to include only those respondents who have heard of Charles Darwin and know something about his theory of evolution, the percentage supporting alternate theories increases, from 60% to 66% in Britain and 60% to 64% in the U.S.

The correlation appears again when we consider which countries have more knowledge of Darwin’s theory. The highest numbers of those in support of alternative theories in the classroom correspond to the highest numbers of those familiar with Charles Darwin – 60% in Britain, 65% in Mexico, 61% in China, 66% in Russia, and 60% in the U.S. It appears that the more people know about Darwin’s theory, the more they want to see alternatives in science class.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/the_more_they_know_darwin_the.htm

 

Dissent Among Professors

Professor Pinker engages in wishful thinking — dissent is significant among chemists and chemical engineers [Excerpts]

As recently noted on this site, in his letter to the Boston Globe, Harvard University psychology Professor Steven Pinker began: “SHAME ON you for publishing two creationist op-eds in two years from the Discovery Institute, a well-funded propaganda factory that aims to sow confusion about evolution. Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design” seriously, and in the famous Dover, Pa., trial in 2005, a federal court ruled that it is religion in disguise.”

Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design” seriously? There appear to be more than a few in the chemistry/chemical engineering community that do. Kudos to a chemist for alerting me to this. Two weeks before Professor Pinker’s letter, Chemical & Engineering News (July 6th issue, pp 5-6) published six letters in response to a March 23rd article on the American Chemical Society’s stance on evolution/intelligent design and/or the Editor’s April 6th piece about the Texas School Board science standards. Of these six letters, five clearly came down on the side of questioning major aspects of evolutionary theory and encouraging open discussion of unsupported aspects of the theory. Three of the letters referred specifically and positively to intelligent design. Of course, five people are a very small fraction of the chemistry/chemical engineering community. But this is an unusually large number of letters on a single topic, and for five scientists to speak out spontaneously in a hostile environment is indicative of many more out there.

The fact that 83% of the letters on this topic that the Editor published were opposed to his own stance suggests that he received many like these….And as far as Discovery being “well-funded”? Darwinist paranoia. The budget of Professor Pinker’s department alone (with 32 faculty) is probably significantly greater than the entire Discovery budget, much less the part that goes to support intelligent design.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/professor-pinker-engages-in-wishful-thinking-dissent-is-significant-among-chemists-and-chemical-engineers/

 

Tomado de www.thebereancall.org

Talk About Evolution: But Don’t Reveal Any Weaknesses

Eugenie Scott Coaches Scientists to Talk About Evolution Without Revealing Any Weaknesses

Eugenie Scott plays many roles in the evolution debate. Now, in a recent enlightening interview in Science News, she offers her wisdom as a media coach for scientists talking publicly about evolution. Her most important piece of advice? Never use terminology that could imply any real weakness in evolutionary biology. Dr. Scott counsels: “To put it mildly, it doesn’t help when evolutionary biologists say things like, “This completely revolutionizes our view of X.” Because hardly anything we come up with is going to completely revolutionize our view of the core ideas of science…. An insight into the early ape-men of East and South Africa is not going to completely change our understanding of Neandertals, for example. So the statement is just wrong. Worse, it’s miseducating the public as to the soundness of our understanding of evolution.”

So what happens when we do make a discovery that refutes or challenges some evolutionary hypothesis? Are scientists supposed to just spin it positively and never acknowledge they were wrong? Essentially, Dr. Scott says yes, because, in her own words: “You can say that this fossil or this new bit of data ’sheds new light on this part of evolution.’” Funny, because I always thought that scientific progress is made when we reject false hypotheses, and scientific literacy would require disclosing those sorts of things to the public.

Later in the interview, Scott makes an even more startling comment, saying: “Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it.”

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/eugenie_scott_coaches_scientis.html

[TBC: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:22).]

Tomado de www.thebereancall.org

“Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution That is True?”

“Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution That is True?”

“Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.’”

–Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.

Tomado de www.thebereancall.org

The Results of Evolution

Could It Be the Bloodiest Religion Ever?

 

Christians are often confronted with the claim that a humanistic worldview will help society become better. Even the first Humanist Manifesto, of which belief in evolution is a subset, declared, “The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently co-operate for the common good.” But can such a statement be true?

For starters, what do the authors mean by “good”? They have no legitimate foundation for such a concept, since one person’s “good” can be another’s “evil.” To have some objective standard, they must borrow from the teachings of God in the Bible.

Beyond that, does evolution really teach a future of prosperity? What has been the result of evolutionary thinking in the past hundred years? Perhaps this could be a test of what is to come. Let’s first look at the casualties stemming from leaders with evolutionary worldviews, beginning in the 1900s, to see the hints of what this “next level” looks like:

***

Who/What? Pre-Hitler Germany/Hitler and the Nazis

Specific Event and Estimated Dead: WWI: 20,000,000 dead, 21,000,000 wounded¹

^{–WWII: 72,000,0002
–Holocaust: 17,000,000? (estimates range from 7 to 26 million)3}

 

Who/What? Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin

Specific Event and Estimated Dead: Bolshevik revolution and Russian Civil War: 15,000,000⁴

 

Who/What? Joseph Stalin

Specific Event and Estimated Dead:  20,000,000⁵

 

Who/What? Mao Zedong

Specific Event and Estimated Dead: 14,000,000–20,000,000⁶

 

Who/What? Pol Pot (Saloth Sar)

Specific Event and Estimated Dead: 750,000–1,700,000⁷

 

Who/What? Abortion*

Specific Event and Estimated Dead: China estimates 1971–2006: 300,000,000⁸

–Russia estimates 1954–1991: 280,000,000⁹

^{–U.S. estimates 1928–2007: 26,000,00010}

^{–France estimates 1936–2006: 5,749,73111}

^{–UK estimates 1958–2006: 6,090,738 12}

^{–Germany estimates 1968–2007: 3,699,62413}

* This table only lists estimates for abortion deaths in few countries; so, this total figure is likely very conservative.

***

Charles Darwin’s view of evolution was catapulted into societies around the world in the mid- to late 1800s. Evolutionary teachings influenced Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and many others. Let’s take a closer look at some of these people and events and examine the evolutionary influence and repercussions.

 

World War I and II, Hitler, Nazis, and the Holocaust

Most historians would point to the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand on June 18, 1914, as the event that triggered World War I (WWI). But tensions were already high considering the state of Europe at the time. Darwinian sentiment was brewing in Germany. Darwin once said:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aborigine] and the gorilla.¹⁴

Darwin viewed the “Caucasian” (white-skinned Europeans) as the dominant “race” in an evolutionary worldview. To many evolutionists at the time, mankind had evolved from ape-like creatures that had more hair, dark skin, dark eyes, etc. Therefore, more “evolved” meant less body hair, blond hair, blue eyes, etc. Later in Hitler’s era, Nazi Germany practiced Lebensborn, which was a controversial program, the details of which have not been entirely brought to light. Many claim it was a breeding program that tried to evolve the “master race” further—more on this below.

But the German sentiment prior to WWI was very much bent on conquering for the purpose of expanding their territory and their “race.” An encyclopedia entry from 1936 states:

In discussions of the background of the war much has been said of Pan-Germanism, which was the spirit of national consciousness carried to the extreme limit. The Pan-Germans, who included not only militarists, but historians, scientists, educators and statesmen, conceived the German people, no matter where they located, as permanently retaining their nationality. The most ambitious of this group believed that it was their mission of Germans to extend their kultur (culture) over the world, and to accomplish this by conquest if necessary. In this connection the theory was advanced that the German was a superior being, destined to dominate other peoples, most of whom were thought of as decadent.¹⁵

Germany had been buying into an extreme view of Darwin’s model of evolution and saw themselves as the superior “race,” destined to dominate the world. This view set the stage for Hitler and the Nazi party and paved the road to WWII.

Hitler

World War II dwarfed World War I in the total number of people who died. Racist attitudes exploded in Germany against people groups such as Jews, Poles, and many others. Adolf Hitler was heavily influenced by Darwin’s teaching on evolution.

Hitler even tried to force the Protestant church in Germany to change fundamental tenants because of his newfound faith.¹⁶ In 1936, while Hitler was in power, an encyclopedia entry on Hitler stated:

. . . a Hitler attempt to modify the Protestant faith failed.¹⁷

His actions strongly suggest that he did not hold to the basic fundamentals taught in the 66 books of the Bible. Though some of his writings suggest he did believe in some form of God early on, his religious views moved toward humanism after his acceptance of evolution. This refutes notions that Hitler was a Protestant Christian as some have claimed. Consider this quote in his unpublished second book:

The types of creatures on the earth are countless, and on an individual level their self-preservation instinct as well as the longing for procreation is always unlimited; however, the space in which this entire life process plays itself out is limited. It is the surface area of a precisely measured sphere on which billions and billions of individual beings struggle for life and succession. In the limitation of this living space lies the compulsion for the struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival, in turn contains the precondition for evolution.¹⁸

Hitler continues:

The history of the world in the ages when humans did not yet exist was initially a representation of geological occurrences. The clash of natural forces with each other, the formation of a habitable surface on this planet, the separation of water and land, the formation of the mountains, plains, and the seas. That [was] is the history of the world during this time. Later, with the emergence of organic life, human interest focuses on the appearance and disappearance of its thousandfold forms. Man himself finally becomes visible very late, and from that point on he begins to understand the term “world history” as referring to the history of his own development—in other words, the representation of his own evolution. This development is characterized by the never-ending battle of humans against animals and also against humans themselves.¹⁹

Hitler fully believed Darwin as well as Darwin’s precursors—such as Charles Lyell’s geological ages and millions of years of history. In his statements here, there is no reference to God. Instead, he unreservedly flew the banner of naturalism and evolution. His evolutionary views certainly helped lead him and the Nazi party into WWII because they viewed the “Caucasian” as more evolved, which to them justified their adoption of the idea that lesser “races” would be eliminated in the struggle for survival. Among the first to be targeted were Jews, then Poles, and then many others.

Trotsky, Lenin

Trotsky and Lenin were both notorious leaders of the USSR—and specifically the Russian revolution. Lenin, taking power in 1917, became a ruthless leader and selected Trotsky as his heir. Lenin and Trotsky held to Marxism, which was built on Darwinism and evolution. Karl Marx regarded Darwin’s book as an “epoch making book.” With regards to Darwin’s research on natural origins, Marx claimed, “The latter method is the only materialistic and, therefore, the only scientific one.”²⁰

Few realize or admit that Marxism, the primary idea underlying communism, is built on Darwinism. In 1883, Freidrich Engels, Marx’s longtime friend and collaborator, stated at Marx’s funeral service that “Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.”²¹ Both Darwin and Marx built their ideologies on naturalism and materialism.

Trotsky once said of Darwin:

Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe. I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought. I was the more astonished when I read . . . that he had preserved his belief in God. I absolutely declined to understand how a theory of the origin of species by way of natural selection and sexual selection and a belief in God could find room in one and the same head.²²

Trotsky’s high regard for evolution and Darwin were the foundation of his belief system. Like many, Trotsky probably did not realize that most of the precious few instances of the name “God” did not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. These references were added later, and many suspect that this was done to influence church members to adopt Darwinism. Regardless, Trotsky may not have read much of Darwin’s second book, Descent of Man, in which Darwin claims that man invented God:

The same high mental faculties which first led man to believe in unseen spiritual agencies, then in fetishism, polytheism, and ultimately in monotheism, would infallibly lead him, as long as his reasoning powers remained poorly developed, to various strange superstitions and customs.²³

Vladimir Lenin picked up on Darwinism and Marxism and ruled very harshly as an evolutionist. His variants of Marxism have become known as Leninism (see The Development of Capitalism in Russia). Regardless, the evolutionist roots of Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin were the foundation that Communism has stood on—and continues to stand on.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, to name a few

Perhaps the most ruthless communist leaders were Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Each of these were social Darwinists, ruling three different countries—the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia respectively. Their reigns of terror demonstrated the end result of reducing the value of human life to that of mere animals, a Darwinistic teaching.²⁴

 

^Abortion

^{The war on children has been one of the quietest and yet bloodiest in the past hundred years. In an evolutionary mindset, the unborn have been treated as though they are going through an “animal phase” and can simply be discarded.}

Early evolutionist Ernst Haeckel first popularized the concept that babies in the womb are actually undergoing animal developmental stages, such as a fish stage and so on. This idea has come to be known as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Haeckel even faked drawings of various animals’ embryos and had them next to drawn human embryos looking virtually identical.

These drawings have been shown to be completely false.²⁵ Haeckel himself partially confessed as much.²⁶ However, this discredited idea has been used repeatedly for a hundred years! Textbooks today still use this concept, and museums around the world still teach it.

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

In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.²⁷

Evolutionary views have decreased the value of human life. Throughout the world the casualties of the war on children is staggering. Though deaths of children and the unborn did exist prior to the “evolution revolution,” they have increased exponentially as a result of Darwinian teachings.

 

Conclusion

Is evolution the cause of wars and deaths? Absolutely not—both existed long before Darwin was born. Sin is the ultimate cause.²⁸ But an evolutionary worldview has done nothing but add fuel to the fire.

In spite of the wars and atrocities caused by those who subscribed to an evolutionary worldview in recent times, there is still hope. We can end the seemingly endless atrocities against the unborn.

In Egypt, Israelite boys were slaughtered by being thrown into the Nile at the command of Pharaoh (Exodus 1:20). And yet, by the providence of God, Moses survived and led the Israelites to safety, and the Lord later judged the Egyptians.

In Israel under the Roman Empire, Herod the Great commanded the slaughter of all the boys under the age of two in and around Bethlehem. And yet, by the providence of God, Jesus, the Son of God, survived and later laid down His life to bring salvation to mankind as the Prince of Peace. Herod’s name, however, went down in history as an evil tyrant and murderer.

In this day and age, governments readily permit the killing of children, both boys and girls, and sometimes command it (abortion). By providence, however, you survived. While we can’t change the past, we can learn from it. If we are to stop this continuing bloodshed, we must get back to the Bible and realize the bankrupt religion of evolution has led only to death—by the millions.

 

Footnotes

1 World War I Casualties, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties, October 23, 2008, as with all of these statistics, they may have some variance depending on source.

2 World War II Casualties, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties, October 23, 2008.

3 The Holocaust, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust, October 23, 2008.

4 Russian Civil War, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War, October 23, 2008.

5 Joseph Stalin, http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html, October 23, 2008.

6 Mao Tse-Tung, http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html, October 23, 2008.

7 Pol Pot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot, October 23, 2008.

8 Historical abortion statistics, PR China, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston , last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-prchina.html.

9 Historical abortion statistics, U.S.S.R., compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston , last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-ussr.html

10 Historical abortion statistics, United States, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston , last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html.

11 Historical abortion statistics, France, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston, last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-france.html.

12 Historical abortion statistics, United Kingdom, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston, last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

13 Historical abortion statistics, FR Germany, compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston, last updated 4 June 2008, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-frgermany.html

14 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York: A.L. Burt, 1874, 2nd ed.), p. 178.

15 The American Educator Encyclopedia, The United Educators, Inc., Chicago, 1936, p. 3914 under entry “World War.”

16 The American Educator Encyclopedia, The United Educators, Inc., Chicago, 1936, p. 1702 under entry “Hitler.”

17 The American Educator Encyclopedia, The United Educators, Inc., Chicago, 1936, p. 1494 under entry “Germany.”

18 Hitler’s Second Book, Adolf Hitler, Edited by Gerald L. Weinberg, 2003 Enigma books, Translated by Krista Smith, p. 8.

19 Hitler’s Second Book, Adolf Hitler, Edited by Gerald L. Weinberg, 2003 Enigma books, Translated by Krista Smith, p. 9.

20 Great Books of the Western World, Volume 50, Capital, Karl Marx, William Benton (Publishers), Chicago, 1952, Footnotes on p. 166 and p. 181

21 Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, London,: Chatto & Windus, 1959, p. 348.

22 Eastman, Max, Trotsky: A portrait of his youth, New York, pp. 117-118, 1925.

23 Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Chapter III (Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals), 1871, As printed in the Great Books of the Western World, Volume 49, Robert Hutchins, Ed., Chicago, 1952, p. 303.

24 Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution.

25 Michael Richardson et al, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2):91-106, 1997.

26 Haeckel said, “ . . . a small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass’s [one of his critics] sense of the word) “falsified”—all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughts- man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge.” The Truth about Haeckel’s Confession, The Bible Investigator and Inquirer, M.L. Hutchinson, Melbourne, March 11, 1911, p. 22–24.

27 Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution, Chapter 8 (The evils of evolution), Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 1987, p. 105. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter8.asp

28 The New Answers Book 1, Gen. Ed. Ken Ham, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2006, Chapter 26: Why does God’s creation include death and suffering?, pp.325-338. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-does-creation-include-suffering

 

Información tomada de www.answersingenesis.org

EUGENICS AND THE NAZIS

Eugenics [Excerpts] The term “eugenics” was first used in 1883 by Francis Galton, Darwin’s half cousin. In 1871, Darwin authored the racist book The Descent of man and Selection in Relation to Sex saying that “the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

This followed the principle of “survival of the fittest” coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864 after reading Darwin’s 1959 book, The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection for the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (four years after Arthur Gobineau’s An Essay on the Inequality of the Races).

For humans, this principle expressed itself in Social Darwinism. Thus, during the 1870s, Oxford lecturer John Ruskin would instill in his students, like Cecil Rhodes, the concept that they were “the best northern blood” and should rule the world.

Rhodes scholarships were not only given to students from America and Commonwealth nations, but also to those from Germany beginning in the very early 1900s.

Germans at this time were also being conditioned to see historical progression in terms of “blood and land,” a sort of Teutonic knighthood descended from the Aryans. In 1914, Madame Blavatsky’s Aryan doctrine had spread through Germany and Austria, and it was from her writings that a young Adolph Hitler learned the meaning of the Aryan swastika.

By this time, eugenics was a growing international movement with the first International Congress of Eugenics held in 1912 with Vice-Presidents Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Skull & Bones member Gifford Pinchot, and former Harvard University president Charles Eliot.

In this same year, eugenics proponent Woodrow Wilson signed into law a brutal sterilization act, and the next year eugenics adherent Theodore Roosevelt wrote of the need to improve “racial qualities.” Calvin Coolidge wrote similarly in “Whose Country Is This?” (Good Housekeeping, February 1921), after Arthur Calhoun in Volume 3 of his widely used textbook A Social History of the American Family (1919) explained that “in the new social order, extreme emphasis is sure to be placed upon eugenic procreation.”

Men of wealth like Andrew Carnegie and the Rockefellers played an important part in funding the eugenics movement….It was during this time of the early 20th Century that Rockefeller introduced Margaret Sanger to the monied elite who would help her form the Birth Control League which would later become Planned Parenthood.

The November 1921 issue of Sanger’s Birth Control Review carried the heading “Birth Control: To Create A Race of Thoroughbreds,” and Sanger would later advocate eugenically limiting “dysgenic stocks” such as blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics, as well as “slum dwellers” such as Jewish immigrants.

Across the nation during the 1930s, state legislatures (eventually 38) enacted sterilization laws regarding the “feeble-minded.” Also during this time, Franklin Roosevelt became president, and in Christopher Thorne’s Allies of a Kind (1978) one finds: “Subjects to do with breeding and race seem, indeed, to have held a certain fascination for the president…. Roosevelt felt it in order to talk, jokingly, of dealing with Puerto Rico’s excessive birth rate by employing, in his own words, ‘the methods which Hitler used effectively’ [to make them] sterile.”

In the April 1933 edition of Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review, Dr. Ernst Rudin of Hitler’s Nazi Third Reich wrote “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need.”

 

Información tomada de

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/009/cuddy/eugenics.htm