The following are portions of a letter from Al, a gentleman who read, and disputed, my article on Darwin.  I believe that many other people probably think along the same lines as Al,  so I here respond to Al's comments and questions:   (Read related letters from John, along with my comments (John I, and John II)).

Al writes:

"There are several pieces to your website that I both agree, and disagree with, and thusly, thought I should send in some feedback, and comments.  First off; I don't really agree with your theory that Darwin was a racist.  Did you perhaps consider that in his subtitle, 'The preservation of  favored races," he did *not* mean races, as we would think today, human races?"

Response:

Let's take a look at your premise, Al, that Darwin was not a racist because he perhaps intended something other than the present meaning of the term: "race."   

I am afraid, Al, that when Darwin refers to "races" here, there can be no doubt that what was intended was a meaning quite similar to the current meaning of the term.   According to the Oxford English Dictionary, historically the term at that time meant:  "A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common decent or origin."   It is also clear, when taken in the context of his entire work, Darwin intended the term rendered in the English as "race" to mean basically the same thing as it means in current usage.  You must remember, that while Origin did not specifically include a direct treatment of Darwin's notion of mankind's history, he fully intended us to make that connection.  In fact,  Darwin himself inextricably connected mankind's descent to his ground-laying Origin.  He writes that through his Origin "[Much] light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" (Origin p. 407).  There is no doubt that Darwin viewed his Origin as a two-part series, as Origin/Descent.   ...And that once he  completed his total task, he intended that Origin should never be read without Descent.   In Origin he was merely laying the  groundwork for Descent.  He knew that politically, this was the only way he could accomplish his task.  I am convinced that it is safe to say that the only right way to regard Origin is as Origin/Descent.  Only then can Darwin be fully (read "rightly") understood.  To regard Descent merely as afterthought, or as a separate collection of subsequent thoughts, would be to miss the whole point Darwin was trying to make.  It is totally obvious in the second part of his work that the so-called "savage races" were, in his racist mind, destined for annihilation, for he writes in Descent that:  "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 the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."  (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York:  A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178)

In the latter quote, the significant term is "anthropomorphous ape."  Again, quoting from the Oxford English Dictionary, "anthropomorphous" means:  the act of something non-human, taking on the characteristics "of human form, having the form of a man."  The example given from literature is of an "anthropomorphic plant," which is a plant described in various writings as having certain human-like characteristics.  Darwin's use of that term here demonstrates that he viewed the immediate ancestors of black peoples as something less than real humans; as apes having some of the characteristics of humans.  This is a blatantly racist notion.

Al writes:

"Also, I notice a great deal of quoting from context in your website, which I must admit, I find rather amusing. Call me easily amused."

Response:

I think what you are intending to contend is that I have quoted my sources "out of context."  There are two issues here:  

1. Your 'out of context' argument here has no prima facie merit unless you provide specific examples of my quoting out of context.  Simply to seek to dispose of a notion in this cliché fashion has no value as argument.  You must indicate specific quotes taken out of context, and demonstrate that they truly were.  (It is  common practice today, in our pop culture of education, to  cavalierly state:  "Your argument has no value because you have quoted 'out of context.'"   What is actually intended, when this practice is used as argument, is that the person whose ideas are under attack will not have the opportunity or inclination to take the time to defend.  The power of the "out of context" attack is not unlike that of the "sound bites" one encounters on pop culture tv news broadcasts.  In reality, the rules of academic discourse makes it incumbent upon the challenger to demonstrate the accuracy of his attack.  For you to make the "out of context" accusation, without demonstration, is at best lazy, at worst erroneous.) 

2. I contend that I have been totally accurate.  In fact, I am quite certain that every quote was in context.  

In response to the second part of your comment:  That you find my work 'amusing.'   I would say that I am thankful that I got any response from a detractor, for any reason, even if that reason be that he finds my thesis 'humorous.'  I sincerely appreciate the fact that you took time to respond.  Thank you. 

Al writes: 

"You talk of how evolution should only be taught as 'one way the world might work', ( or not taught at all), and of course, your Jewish/Christian view that your God made everything, as another 'way the world might work'.

Response:

I do not quite understand this part of your letter.  I do not believe the words you quote are my words.   Perhaps they are included in one of the letters I have published on my site, or from one of the works by other scholars I have included.  I cannot pinpoint the source, but I do not believe those words to be mine.   

To me, Al, it just makes sense that a theory as fundamentally flawed (scientifically), and blatantly racist, as is Darwin's theory of origins and evolution has no place being foisted upon the youth of our land today.   I do not think it is a matter of theology.

Al writes:

"Why must everyone be so centered on these two religions?"  (Al is referring to Christianity and Judaism.) 

Response:

Again, Al, I do not believe you got this from my writings.  It appears you are bringing other elements and outside prejudices into the argument.  My argument is simply this:  Darwin and his theories are blatantly racist, and are bad science.  There needs to be no more compelling arguments to act, in my opinion.

Al, why do you feel compelled to interject religion into the argument?  Are you afraid that if Darwin falls, you will have nothing with which to replace him?  If that is the case, you need to re-think your motivations. If you truly wish to take a look at the larger picture, I suggest you read Stuart A. Kauffman's "The Origins of Order," Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1993 (Or at least read his 'Epilogue' starting on page 643). 

Al writes:

"When people talk of bringing religion back into the schools, it's always Christianity, some disgusting form of fundamentalism, people who think the world has only been around some seven-thousand years."  Why do we miss all the other religions? ;) Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Islam  .. .Just one of my little rants."

Response:

This, of course, has nothing to do with my argument.  I cannot judge the motivation behind your complaints, except that you seem to have a problem with religion.  That's fine.  I was not writing a religious treatise, so I will not here address these comments.  

Al, all I was seeking to do was to state, and to document with facts, that it just makes sense that a theory as fundamentally flawed (scientifically), and blatantly racist, as is Darwin's theory of evolution has no place being foisted upon the youth of our land today.  I did not propose religion as a replacement for Darwin, in the scientific arena.

Al, think like this for a second:  We have Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and we have the Theory of Quantum Physics; both work in their respective contexts.  But there is still no unified theory.  While we would love to have one, and someday will, for right now we have to admit that we are still working on it. 

Remember this:   Just because we do not have operable theories to explain everything we would like explained does not give us license to make up fairy tales.  Darwin's theory of origins and natural selection are pseudo-scientific fairy tales.  (Regarding this, Stuart Kauffman writes:  "To suppose, as I do, that such an intellectual task may one day be achieved is, among other things, to suspect with quiet passion that below the particular teeming molecular traffic in each cell lie fundamental principles of order any life would reexpress" (p. 645).   So much for Kauffman's view of Darwin's natural selection!) 

Al writes:

"Of course, we're all racists, once you peel away everything. Everyone believes they're better than everyone else, deep down at heart, that *their* kind is superior, as compared to the other's."

Response:

I think you are an amazingly honest person.  I think you are an intelligent person, with a gift for expression.   I think you are truly reaching for the truth, and that if you find it, you will embrace it.  

Al, when you say we are all racists, I know you are wrong.  Certainly, we are all offended from time to time by the actions of individuals; and, certainly, it is quite easy to attribute those offensive characteristics or actions to a whole group (a whole race); but to do so, Al,  is counter-productive, and very harmful.  Real people are hurt by such thinking.  

For another thing, it is illogical.  It is incorrect to argue from the specific to the general.  Example:   Just because we find six (or six dozen) apples with worms does not mean we can assume all apples have worms.  The fact that some members of a group behave poorly does not mean the whole group is flawed.  It simply means that some individuals behaved poorly.  There is no support for racism here.

Al, your statement, that "we're all racists," is very telling.  I do not pretend to be an analyst, but I would confidently make this observation:   I believe such a statement would be consistent coming from one with a background influenced by the teachings of a racist such as Darwin.  I contend that your last comments are simply the product of  many years of Darwin's racism oozing to the surface.  

Al, I believe that you, along with tens of millions of other students coming through the public schools during the John Dewey era, have been "educationally abused."   You were taught deceitful, racist materials.  You had no choice.  It was not your fault. 

But that was before.  Now, Al, I have turned on the light for you.  Now, from this time on, it is up to you.  From now on, Al, if you continue in your racism, it will be by choice.  You will have no excuse.  

Al, it is not too late to change.  Embrace truth.  Shun fairy tales.  Help stop racism.

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

--Mike Carrier (MA, NYU--Graduate School of Arts and Science)