Dear Science Teacher:

It is usually considered polite to sign a letter.  In your case, however, I can appreciate the fact that you would wish to remain anonymous.  I do thank you for your comments, and I respect your right and desire to defend your views.

Science Teacher Wrote:

I wish sincerly [sic] to congratulate you for this incredible ammount [sic]  of speculations, non-objective statements and illogical reasonning [sic]. You have clearly non [sic] idea what science really is, and that makes you very dangerous, because you know little [sic] enough to appear credible to an ignorant mass of population.  

(Being translated into reasonably literate English:  "I sincerely wish to congratulate you for this incredible amount of speculation, subjective statements and illogical reasoning. You clearly have no idea what science really is, and that makes you very dangerous.   You know just enough to appear credible to an ignorant mass of population.")

I respond:

This should be allowed to stand on its own.  It is your opinion, and you have a right to it.  It would have been helpful to me had you provided instances backing up your allegations, but you prefer to indulge yourself with invectives, rather than examples.  That, in the vernacular, is mere "venting."  ...But that's OK, if it makes you feel better about yourself.  It does not, however, add anything to the discussion.

Science Teacher Wrote:

Fistly [sic], if you had done any serious research, you would know that current science non [sic] longer refers to Darwin's books, but to Neo-Darwinism. But I really doubt someone like you ignores that, I put it that [sic] referring directly to Darwinism was just a way to make things more easy to understand [sic].  

(Being translated into reasonably literate English:  "First, if you had done any serious research, you would know that current science no longer refers to Darwin's books, but to Neo-Darwinism.  I assume you are aware of that distinction when you make references to Darwinism; and that you are lumping the whole discussion under that one heading in an effort to make it easier to understand.")

I respond:

This statement is true.  I agree with your entire statement  here.

Science Teacher Wrote:

Secondly, destroying ones hypothesis and theories by discrediting the person, affirming he is a racist, is a very dishonnest [sic] way of arguing, and certainly [sic] not science nor objective reasonning [sic].  

(Being translated into reasonably literate English:  "Second, destroying ones hypothesis and theories by discrediting the person (you affirmed Darwin was a racist) is a very dishonest  way of arguing, and is certainly not indicative of  accepted scientific discipline.  Furthermore, it does not reflect objective reasoning.")

I respond:

You are not correct here.  I did not attempt to destroy Darwin's theories by demonstrating him to be a racist.  I allowed the scientific community to discredit his theories.  It is clearly understood by the "real" scientists (as you call them) that Darwin's theories are worse than worthless.  I merely point out that the driving force behind Darwin's theory was his racism.  I beg to differ with your assertion that I was in any way dishonest.  I quoted accurately, and in context.   I cited my sources.  I appreciate the fact that you are angry with me.  Perhaps you made so many mistakes in your letter because you were so angry.  What ever the case, the truth is this:  I refuted his theories with science.   

However, the racist aspect is very significant.  Not only does Darwin himself state that the driving force behind his theory was blatant racism, but that is the very aspect of his theories that was picked up by his followers.   If his theories could stand on their own, that would be a different matter.  But he loses on two fronts:  1--He was a racist.  2--His theories represent bad science.  

Science Teacher Wrote:

I cannnot [sic] honestly say that Darwin was not a racist, I did not know him, but what I know, is that in those years, racism was not even a word. Nobody in [sic] that time would have ever state [sic] that races are equivalent [sic].  When quoting someone, fair logic says to consider the context of the quote. The historical context behind Darwin [sic] theory is certain to consider negro people.  

(Being translated into reasonably literate English:  "I cannot honestly say that Darwin was not a racist.   I did not know him.   But I do know that in those years, racism was not even a word.  No one at that time would have ever stated that the races were equal.  The historical context behind Darwin's theory would have been certain to consider Negro people to be inferior.")

I respond:

I am glad that you do not refute my assertion that Darwin was a racist.  You are correct when you say that at that time "racism" was not even a word.  The fact is that the terms "racism" and "racist" came into being (as pejoratives) to describe exactly the type of thinking exemplified by Darwin.  Webster describes "racism" like this:  "The assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others."  The mere fact that the use of the term "racist" did not appear until after Darwin speaks volumes.  Darwin was not only a racist, he was an archetypical racist.

I would also agree with you that many others held the theory that some races were superior to others.  (1849) Macaulay History of England (i.I.16) states:  "In no country has the enmity of race been carried farther than in England."   (1856) "Race in the negro is of appalling importance," Emerson Eng. Traits, Race Wks. (Bohn).  (1890) "They [races] are separated by language, by degree of civilization, and by the indefinable aggregate of inherent differences which we call 'race." (Spectator 25, January).  So, in a very real sense, Darwin merely legitimized and systematized the notion of racism.  That, however, does not legitimize him.  Racism was wrong then, and it is wrong now.  ...And it certainly has no place in our schools today.

Science Teacher Wrote:

...why ven [sic] the church at this moment did consider [sic] the black race inferior... but we don't go around chasing religion [sic] of our schools because they [sic] once stated racist sayings... 

(Being translated into reasonably literate English:  "...Even the Church at this time  considered the black race inferior... but we don't go around chasing religion out of our schools because its proponents once stated racist sayings...")

I respond:

Some of what you write here deserves consideration.  I would agree with you that any proponents of racism within the Church ought to be discredited.    Racism is wrong in every case, where ever it appears.  Any racist teachings, whether hiding in religions or in pseudo-science, ought to be discredited.  That is to say, it is OK to "Out the Theoweenies," along with the "Darweenies." 

Science Teacher Wrote:

...I think I said enough, but just understand this: it is your kind of reasonning [sic] that is endangering the kids... scientifical [sic] thinking considers the facts, and is constantly reputting [sic] itself in question... Nothing is certain. That is objective.

(Being translated into reasonably literate English:  "...I think I said enough.  But just understand this: it is your kind of reasoning that is endangering the kids... scientific thinking considers the facts, and is constantly questioning itself.   Nothing is certain.  That is objective.")

I respond:

Science Teacher, you are wrong.  Your blind adherence to an out-dated theory is what is hurting the kids.  No serious (you call them "real") scientists think much at all of Darwin's theories, or even Neo-Darwinism.  I suggest you read Stuart Kauffman and his theory relating to order in the universe ("Origins of Order:  Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution," and "At Home in the Universe, The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity.").  It is time that science teachers become just that -- teachers of science, not fairytales. 

Science Teacher Wrote:

Now please stop , you and your friends and your followers, thinking you are scientists, you're juste [sic] a bunch a fools, more precisely, a bunch of barely educated [sic] fools, the most dangerous ones there is [sic]. Let [sic] science to scientists... real ones. Now, don't make me loose [sic] my time again... I have serious work to do... that is teaching REAL science...

(Being translated into reasonably literate English:  "Now please stop , you and your friends and your followers, thinking you are scientists, you're just a bunch a fools; more precisely, a bunch of barely-educated fools, the most dangerous ones there are.  Leave science to the scientists... real ones.  Now, don't make me lose any more time.... I have serious work to do... that is teaching REAL science...")

I respond:

I regret that you find it necessary to call me names.  I think that bespeaks much about your own inadequacies.   I have never seen so many mistakes in so short a space -- you win that prize.   You should invest in a dictionary, or at least in a word processor with "spell check."  If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you must learn to express yourself.   

By the way, Science Teacher, I have no intention of stopping.  Not until our children are no longer subjected to the ignorant ramblings of "teachers" such as yourself.  

...And, 

"Les paroles s'envolent, les Élites purgent."

 

Again, I do want to express my gratitude to you for having the courage to enter the dialog.  You knew, coming in, that I would refute your statements.  I know that I have not been overly kind.  Neither were you.  In fact, you were arrogant.  That is fine, as long as you can support your arrogance with sound arguments and correct expression.  You accomplished neither.

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

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