Before I review Becky's letter, I would like to acknowledge a reader's request.  He asked that I place all words written by a letter writer (especially those not appearing after the writer’s name) in a different font or in a different color, as he was confused as to who was writing what.  At first I thought it a frivolous request, but upon examination of this piece I agreed that it could be helpful.  So, here goes…

Becky Writes:  First, it seems that your arguement for Darwin's racism is centered around two main bits of contention.  One is Darwin's statement that "civilized" societies will eventually win out over "savage" societies, and the other is the subtitle of Origin of Species.  Having very recently read the book for an Anthropology class, I think there are a couple of ways in which the two examples are misleading.

Goodschool’s Response:  Before addressing her contentions, I would like to address the fact that some readers might question Becky’s use of the English language.   I would also point out that the use of punctuation and the spelling of some words differ from country to country.  Styles also vary.  It should be obvious that Becky is a good writer, and that for the most part she conveys her thoughts clearly.  Even though she may make a few grammatical errors, I think it does not diminish her effort to express her point of view.  I think that Becky is a bright person, and a very civil one.  Her thoughts are worthy of consideration.  I do not take any of Becky’s comments out of context, and all quotations of her letter are verbatim.  Also, I leave most of her mistakes intact without drawing attention to them, for doing so could be more distracting than helpful.

That having been noted, I would like to start out by commenting briefly on the words chosen by Becky to describe the "basis" of my argument.   

She writes:  “…your argument for Darwin’s racism is centered around two main bits of contention.”  First of all, Becky should know that argument is never “centered,” it is either “based” on something, or it is “baseless”; and if baseless, it is not worthy of consideration.  Never, however, are arguments “centered.”

 Second, Becky’s observation here is simply not accurate:  My argument for Darwin’s racism is not ”centered around” (or based upon) the “two main bits of contention” that she cites.

 What Becky does here is this:  She selects two issues relating to Darwin, ones she apparently feels confident in attacking, then wrongly states that my argument is based upon them.  This form of debate is most commonly used by those who have only a cursory knowledge of a subject, but a strong predisposition.  While this practice is popular on college campuses (particularly in schools of education), it is severely flawed.  Clichés such as creating “Straw Dogs” and “Throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water” were created to describe it.  I think that were Becky to approach the matter objectively, and were she to read my review of The Descent of Man (for it is from that work that the major part of my argument evolves, not from The Origin of Species, as Becky assumes), she would arrive at a different conclusion.

 Before I do this, however, let it be thoroughly understood that I do not accept her premise that the argument for Darwin’s racism is based on the two aspects she cites, and that my willingness to address her contentions regarding these two aspects should in no way be so construed. 

 Becky Writes:  With regard to "savagery", "Barbarism", and "civilization", it is unfair not to mention that these were, in Darwin's time, simply the standing words for differentiation between what we would now call "hunter-gatherer", "agricultural" and "industrialized" societies.  The words were based on a theory of social "progression" that was indeed, ethnically motivated; however, to use them as evidence for Darwin's personal beliefs, rather than the prevailing social-scientific winds of the time is not entirely honest.  I have yet to be in any class in which Darwin's particular choice of these types of words wasn't brought up and explained, that is, where a teacher didn't say, "It's important to realize the anthropological theory which gave rise to these types of words is entirely defunct."

Goodschool’s Response:  Let’s take a close look at just what Becky is attempting to accomplish here:  She states that we should equate the use of the term “savagery” during Darwin’s era with the current concept “hunter-gatherer,” “barbarism” with “agricultural” and “civilization” with “industrialized.”   First of all, the term “savagery” is a noun used for a particular type of behavior, while “hunter-gatherer” is a noun denoting a particular type of people.   I think Becky probably meant “savage.”  In either case she is wrong. 

To Darwin, the term “savage” represented something other than a person who merely survived by hunting and gathering.  To Darwin a “savage” was an animal, not a real human being; had a brain smaller than the “civilized” man [read: ‘white man’]; was less athletic; was weaker; was dumber; cheated more; was not noble; was prone to alcoholism; was not capable of being a genius; smelled badly; represented a different sub-species than “civilized” man, if not a totally different species altogether; had much in common with idiots; and had smaller “brain cases” than did “civilized man.”  In all these cases, Darwin was wrong.  …and, of course, Darwin’s favorite “savage” whipping boys were those he called “Negroes.”

Instead of picking a fight with me, Becky should be challenging her “teachers” not to write off all these wrong (perhaps stupid and careless) Darwinian assertions as product of a “defunct anthropology.”  I find it very difficult to understand how a serious student can have the gall to attack facts (as I present in my review of Descent), and accept whole-cloth a teacher’s fanciful “explanation” of them.  I wonder how students like Becky will view Hitler in a hundred years. 

I summarize Darwin’s notion of the “savage” in my review of “The Descent of Man.”  This is what I wrote:  “It is clear from Darwin’s own words that in his mind the Negro species (or sub-species) falls into the category of savage.  Therefore, when Darwin writes “savage,” one can assume that he intends Negroes to be so included, unless otherwise specified.  Darwin may cite certain characteristics of savages that differ from one group to another; but, in his mind, Negroes are savages.   It would be helpful had Darwin spelled out exactly why he chose the term savage to designate this group of people, but he did not.  However, he does help us better to understand his notion of savage when he uses a verbal (stative/past participle) form of the word to describe what he perceived to be a morbid mood exhibited by his dog.  He writes:   “I had a dog who was savage and averse to all strangers…” (Descent p.76).” 

Later I write in my review:  “In describing the thought processes of savages, Darwin seems to be more fond of anecdote than evidence.  For instance, after telling the story of a pike that repeatedly ran into a glass barrier that had been inserted into its aquarium, Darwin pointed out that the pike continued to do so for several months, each time knocking itself senseless, until it finally learned to avoid the glass (Darwin did not observe this event first hand, he recounts it as it was reported by another, terming it a “curious case.”).  Darwin follows this second-hand story with one totally fabricated:  “If a savage, who had never seen a large plate-glass window, were to dash himself even once against it, he would for a long time afterwards associate a shock with a window-frame; but very differently from the pike, he would probably reflect on the nature of the impediment, and be cautious under analogous circumstances” (p.78).

“Regarding the search for water, Darwin provides another unsubstantiated supposition:  “Now what is the difference between such actions, when performed by an uncultivated man, and by one of the higher animals?  The savage and the dog have often found water at a low level, and the coincidence under such circumstances has become associated in their minds.  A cultivated man would perhaps make some general proposition of the subject; but from all that we know of savages it is extremely doubtful whether they would do so, and a dog certainly would not.  But a savage, as well as a dog, would search in the same way, though frequently disappointed; and in both it seems to be equally an act of reason…” (p.79). 

“While both of these last two points could probably have been demonstrated scientifically, in both cases Darwin was content simply to make up his own little stories to support his argument, his “observations” not involving actual observation.   I believe that it is incumbent upon Darwin, if he is so thoroughly driven to demean whole groups of people (specifically Negroes), at least to make an attempt to demonstrate his statements scientifically.  He makes no such attempt, even in cases such as these in which he should have been able to produce empirical evidence, were his arguments sound. 

“Darwin later includes another even more ridiculous anecdote purposed to explain primitive religion.  He writes:  “The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed:  my dog, a full-grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little disturbance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it.  As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked.  He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory” (p.98). 

“There are three elements of this little story that bother me greatly:

• First of all, it seems to me to be highly presumptuous and arrogant for Darwin to relate his dog’s reaction to sudden motion (“the dog growled fiercely and barked”), to a Negro’s (savage man’s) view of religion.  Darwin cannot know what was going on in his dog’s brain any more than he could know what goes on in the mind of an individual.  Not only is it presumptuous and arrogant to draw such a conclusion, it smacks of unscientific stereotyping.  
• Second, Darwin’s use of the term “fact” is not only totally out of place here, it strongly suggests he is incapable of dealing with his subject from a scientific perspective.  He could have correctly written that his point “might be well illustrated by an observation he once made” of his dog.   To the casual observer this might not seem to be a significant distinction, but it is.  Darwin did not use the term “fact” appropriately, especially for a scientist.  One does not simply notice a “little fact.”  Now, assuming he was recounting the event truthfully, it could have been a fact that he observed (or, to use his word, “noticed”) his dog barking at the parasol, but he would not have intended that he observed himself observing.  It just doesn’t make sense for Darwin to “notice” a fact.  This inappropriate application of the term (fact) is further illustrated by Darwin’s positing all sorts of thought processes in the simple act of his dog’s barking.  It may have been a fact that Darwin made an observation, and then drew certain conclusions, but the entire content of that observation was based upon supposition – he offers no proof to substantiate what he terms a fact.  His procedure in this regard is again totally unscientific.  
• Third, Darwin writes that his dog “reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner.”   I might be willing to afford Darwin the latitude that his dog did possess reasoning ability, however I am not quite sure about “unconscious reasoning.”  Think about that that juxtaposition for a minute.   Perhaps Darwin should have stuck to his earlier vocation—preaching.    

“I think it is clear here that Darwin is confused as to the nature of what animals do inside their skulls.  Darwin’s confusion in this regard is again illustrated by his further treatment of primitive religion.  Quoting Lubbock (“Prehistoric Times,” 2^nd Edition, p.571), Darwin writes:  “ ‘…it is not too much to say that the horrible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure.’ These miserable and indirect consequences of our highest faculties may be compared with the incidental and occasional mistakes of the instincts of the lower animals” (p.99).  I wonder what is the difference between Darwin’s dog reasoning to himself in a “rapid and unconscious manner,” and the “mistakes of the instincts of the lower animals”?  My “instincts” tell me that Darwin is here either careless or confused—perhaps both.

“There are numerous examples where Darwin interjects his personal “feelings” (as opposed to scientific reasoning) regarding the relative worth of the savage’s value system.  He writes:  “Judging from the hideous ornaments, and the equally hideous music admired by most savages, it might be urged that their aesthetic faculty was not so highly developed as in certain animals…” (p.96).   Such terminology is totally inappropriate for a scientist to use.  His words are utterly subjective, making him seem more like a CNN film critic than an empirical scientist.  Darwin continues:  “Obviously no animal would be capable of admiring such scenes as the heavens at night, a beautiful landscape, or refined music; but such high tastes are acquired through culture, and depend on complex associations; they are not enjoyed by barbarians or by uneducated persons” (p.96).  

“I wonder upon which rule of logic Darwin bases this last statement.  Did he somehow mystically climb into one of his small savage “brain-cases” and learn first-hand just what that man was thinking?  Or did he, as I suppose he did, simply base his conclusion upon his own personal presuppositions and prejudices?    Some call that egregious racism.

“Darwin tells another story, this one having to do with civilized man’s cultivated social instincts, vis-à-vis, those of the savage.   “…a savage will risk his own life to save that of a member of the same community, but will be wholly indifferent about a stranger:  a young and timid mother urged by the maternal instinct will, without a moment’s hesitation, run the greatest danger for her own infant, but not for a mere fellow-creature.  Nevertheless many a civilized man, or even a boy, who never before risked his life for another, but full of courage and sympathy, has disregarded the instinct of self-preservation, and plunged at once into a torrent to save a drowning man, though a stranger” (pp.113,114).  Once again Darwin presents an anecdote as evidence to prove the superiority of civilized white man. 

“Rather than seeking to aid a person outside the group, Darwin points out that savage man would hold such a person in total disregard.  To demonstrate, Darwin tells yet another story.  In this story a magistrate in West Australia had a worker on his farm.  One of this savage worker’s wives had died of a disease, and the savage, feeling deep remorse, traveled to a distant tribe and killed a women from that tribe.  He did this not so much to “avenge” the death of his wife as to satisfy a perceived duty to the memory of the dead woman (p.118).  The inference here being that civilized man has a more cultivated system of morals and would not do such a thing.  Again Darwin is guilty of providing unscientific anecdotal evidence to support his racist argument.” 

“It is clear that Darwin did not have a very high opinion of “savages [read ‘Negroes’].”   

(I realize that the above quotation from my review was very lengthy.  I do not apologize for including it here, for I cannot assume that Becky has ever read it, as her comments do not seem to reflect such.) 

Certainly, when Darwin referred to Negroes as savages, he had more in mind than a person’s means of livelihood.  If we are going to take Darwin’s work seriously, then we must be allowed to hold the standards he employed up to the light of science, even the science of his day.  When we do so, we find that Darwin’s work doesn’t pass muster for scientific standards of any day.  His work is not the result of a defunct anthropology, it is the product of an unscientific, predisposed, racist mind.

Next Becky equates “barbarism” with “agricultural.”  This comparison is ludicrous, and does not even deserve comment.  Besides, the term “barbarism” does not appear in my review of Descent, so I am not quite sure why Becky is attacking me on the use of this word.  Perhaps the “Straw Dog” bit her again.

Becky then equates “civilized” with “industrialized society.”  I think the “industrial revolution” led to the term “industrialized society,” so Becky’s comparison here is again flawed.  I think that Darwin’s use of the term “civilized” is clear.  If you look it up in the unabridged Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, the meaning of the term in his day is clear.  I see no reason to over-scrutinize Darwin’s intention when he used the term.  When he wrote “civilized man,” he intended it to mean “civilized white man.”  Darwin was a reasonably well-educated man (his studies, before he got sidetracked, were in preparation for the Christian ministry); had he intended some obscure or cryptic meaning for the word, he would have told us. 

Becky Writes:  There is some truth to what Darwin said, if we replace his not-so Politically Correct words with our current, more sensitive ones.  What your site failed to mention was that his prediction has proved to be at least partially right.  Ignoring all notions that one is necessarily "better" than the other, industrialized society does have a tendency to spread, even to the remotest parts of the globe.  Certainly, whether for better or worse, we are witnessing a steady decline in various "native" populations that haven't been altered in some way or another by the effects of a global economy.

Goodschool’s Response:  (Here I choose to respond to Becky personally.)  Becky, I would agree with your assessment that Darwin’s “prediction has proved to be at least partially right.”  You are wrong, however, when you state that my “site failed to mention” it.  I am convinced that not only was Darwin’s prediction partially right, but that it was actually a self-fulfilling prophecy, and possibly even so intended by its author.  I am sure you remember Darwin’s words on this matter.  He wrote:  “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” (Descent p. 162). 

Becky, no matter how “sensitive” you want to be; no matter how much you wish to sanitize this raging racist (Darwin); no matter how hard it is for you to acknowledge his disdain (if not hate) for those he calls “Negroes”; the term “exterminate” very clearly tells us what he had in mind.   Again, the best way to know exactly what he was intending with his use of the word “exterminate” is to go to the authoritative source for guidance:  the “Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.”  According to that work, “exterminate” had much the same meaning in Darwin’s day as it does in ours:  It meant to eliminate, kill, and destroy.  Had Darwin intended to convey the notion of “displace,” as you seem to indicate, he would have used a word such as that.  “Displace” was commonly used in his day.  Of course, “exterminate” was also commonly used then, as well; but the terms were not interchangeable.  Becky, I would not accuse you of being dishonest here, only in need of a reality pill.  You need to challenge the authority of your teachers.  Contrary to what you might think, on the college level and beyond, naiveté is not a virtue.

Along this same line, a good book to read is “From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany (Richard Weikart, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).  In it Weikart writes: “Darwinism was not the sole culprit in the rising tide of scientific racism in the late nineteenth century, but it played a crucial role nonetheless.  Racism obviously predated Darwinism, but during the nineteenth century—in part through the influence of Darwinism—it would undergo significant transformations” (p.103).  

One of those significant transformations had to do with the Darwinian idea of death as a natural engine of evolutionary progress, which was a shift from the Christian conception of death as an unnatural, evil foe to be conquered.   Darwin believed that killing—even within species—was a normal part of the struggle.  Weikart writes regarding this:  “Before Darwinism burst on to the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law...”(p.75).   Weikart also writes that “…the Darwinian devaluation of human life was not just a German phenomenon, and it led to many human tragedies outside of Germany, such as the compulsory sterilization campaigns in th  United States and Scandinavia.  Nowhere did it reach the catastrophic level of Germany, however, since only in Germany did a dictator rule with the power to pursue his radical agenda under the cover of war” (p.10).   

It is not a stretch to conclude that it was Darwin’s racist ideology and rhetoric, such as his use of words like “exterminate” when dealing with “undesirable races,” that led to Hitler’s extermination of 6 million Jews.  I have written elsewhere in Goodschools that for anyone to uphold the teachings of Darwin, that person must be ignorant of the facts, blinded to the facts by ideology, or else that person must himself be a racist.  Becky, your Darwin was not a very sweet guy.  Not only did he advocate the destruction of those he referred to as the “Negro people,” but he at least set the tone for the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews.

Becky Writes:  With regard to the subtitle of "Origin", I have to agree with Chandler that "race" as it is used here does not refer to "race" as we conventionally understand it.  You do make some presumptions in your response to Chandler's letter that enjoy little empirical support.  You state, for example, something to the effect of, "we can only assume that Darwin meant humans."  But we can't only assume that. We can assume many things; for example, that as a naturalist up to his eyeballs in scientific jargon, he meant the scientific definition of race:  subspecies.  In that case, it refers to any population clearly descended from another population, and in such an instance, "sub" means "below" only in the sense that it would be a smaller constituency of a larger population, as a "subtopic" is a more specific portion of a larger, more general topic.

Goodschool’s Response:  I think there is no doubt that the meaning intended by the use of the term “race” has evolved.  “The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language” clearly supports this evolution.  In fact, one should expect the meaning of scientific terms to change over time, as more information accumulates.   That having been stated, I would ask Becky if she is advocating we actually exclude humans from Darwin’s intention when he uses the term race?”  …Or would she include humans, as do I?  If she reads the early part of “The Descent of Man” she can’t miss the fact that Darwin himself states that his earlier work was written (if not as a preface to the latter, then at least) in anticipation of the latter, almost as a Part One and Part Two.  Darwin himself agrees with my contention that humans should be so included.  I think Becky’s problem here might have to do with the old “baby out with the bathwater” thing again. 

Becky Writes:  Darwin long wrestled with differentiation between "species", "variation", and "race".  As I understand, he did so because he was AFRAID of misappropriation of the terms as they might apply to humans.  This is largely due to the fact that he did not (nor did anyone at the time) fully understand the genetic laws that governed inheritance.  As a result, (and I believe he makes multiple statements to this effect), his usages of the three words are to be taken with a grain of salt.

We now know, however, that "race" by its scientific definition does not actually exist in humans.  The variations most recognized as indicators of "race" only appeared in the last 70,000 years or so since humans left the African continent.  They arose as variations based on climate, and are remarkably shallow genetically--that is, they can be altered in one generation, and completely changed in a few.

Ultimately, I think it is dangerous to compare Darwin's choice of words, social sensitivities, and knowledge of genetic  science to our own.  As anything, it must be viewed contextually.  He simply can't be blamed for not posessing knowledge that no one at that time posessed.

Goodschool’s Response:  I realize that the above selection of Becky’s letter is very long.  …And, as I stated earlier, I normally like to deal with shorter passages.  However, Becky’s thoughts here are on a singular topic; and so, to be fair, I have included the whole segment intact.

What Becky is doing here is regurgitating with great energy what her teachers are telling her.  I believe this represents nothing more than these teachers “explaining away” bad science due to their predispositions.  What difference does it make whether all things or just some things were known (or were knowable) to Darwin, when the very basis of his entire study was tainted by prejudice and unscientific methods?   Becky should be willing to devote 1% of her brain power to objectivity.   …And as a serious student she should be taking her teachers to task for their ignorance and arrogance.

Becky Writes:    The most important and oft-repeated elements of his theory are 1)  Evolution Occurs and 2)  Evolution Occurs through natural selection.  Both of these elements remain scientifically intact, though any evolutionary biologist (and even Darwin himself) would admit that there were holes in certain specifics of his theory.  A great number of these holes, however (such as the question of "race" in humans and the specifics of individual-level sexual selection), are gradually being plugged by modern scientific and technological advancement.

I see no reason whatever to cease teaching Darwin in schools or to patently call him a racist.  It is worth, as in any historical text, pointing out what is contextual--what bits still hold up and what bits have since been disproven--but no evidence to suggest that underwent some malicious change to racism in his old age.  I would contend, in fact, that he suggested things that were in stark disagreement with many aspects of prevailing racist attitudes of the time, and if not, he was at worst, only as naive as the rest of the scientific world.

Goodschool’s Response:  Again, I leave intact a rather large portion of Becky’s letter, as it represents her conclusion.  For discussion, however, I will separate certain of her comments.

Becky writes:  “The most important and oft-repeated elements of his theory are 1)  Evolution Occurs and 2)  Evolution Occurs through natural selection.  Both of these elements remain scientifically intact…”  She is correct that some forms of evolution do occur.  That is an established fact.  However, when it comes to Darwin’s notion of “natural selection,” that is a different matter.  The truth here is that the principal defenders of Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” now reside now within the narrow confines of academia.  Real scientists, the ones who actually go to primary sources and do real research before drawing conclusions, scoff at Darwin’s theory of “natural selection.”

While a serious student can easily find any number of sources to establish the problems with Darwin’s work on this matter, I will cite only one here:  Renowned Biochemist Stuart Kauffman writes (The Origin of Order, Oxford University Press,1993):  “Natural selection, operating on variations which are random with respect to usefulness, appears a slim force for order in a chaotic world” (p.643).

“…It has been said that a weakness of some biologists is persistent physics-envy:  the seeking of a deep structure to biology.  Rest content, is the sensible refrain, with middle-level theories capturing parts of how organisms work” (p.644).

Regarding Darwin’s view of natural selection, Kauffman writes:  “For Darwin’s answer to the sources of the order we see all around us is overwhelmingly an appeal to a single singular force:  natural selection.  It is this single-force view which I believe to be inadequate, for it fails to notice, fails to stress, fails to incorporate the possibility that simple and complex systems exhibit order spontaneously.  That spontaneous order exists, however, is hardly mysterious.  The nonbiological world is replete with examples, and no one would doubt that similar sources of order are available to living things.  What is mysterious is the extent of such spontaneous order in life and how such self-ordering may mingle with Darwin’s mechanism of evolution—natural selection—to permit or, better, to produce what we see” (p. xiii).

Later Kauffman writes (regarding natural selection):  “…despite its resilience, that tradition has surely grown without seriously attempting to integrate the ways in which simple and complex systems may spontaneously exhibit order” (p.26).  Also regarding Darwin’s natural selection, Kauffman writes in another place that Darwin’s theory of “natural selection “has fractures as its foundation.”

Becky then writes:  “I see no reason whatever to cease teaching Darwin in schools or to patently call him a racist.”  I would respond:  there can be no doubt that Darwin was an egregious racist, and for his teaching to be handled outside that context is to co-opt his racism.  It is wrong.  

Becky continues:  “I would contend, in fact, that he suggested things that were in stark disagreement with many aspects of prevailing racist attitudes of the time, and if not, he was at worst, only as naive as the rest of the scientific world.”  

I would agree with Becky here, at least in part:  It is true that the rest of the world at the time of Darwin was to a large part “racist,” as we would define the term today.  But that’s not the main issue we ought to be looking at.  What is important here is that, at the time of Darwin, much of the world advocated slavery.  It was on this matter that Darwin distinguished himself—Darwin was an abolitionist.  Simply put, Darwin was a racist who did not believe in slavery. 

Darwin, in fact, was every bit as racist as was his culture; his racism was just of a different type.  He came out against the blatant mistreatment of people of color in much the same way as he fought against the mistreatment of animals in a zoo.  That’s why I provide Darwin with the moniker “The Beneficent Zookeeper” in my review of his “Descent.”

Furthermore, I would add that were Darwin’s chosen field something along the lines of math, or most any one of the other purely empirical sciences of his day, and were he to have done a good job developing and proving his theories, I would be more inclined to look past his racism. 

However, because Darwin is today charged with setting the foundation for how we are supposed to believe human beings (and species in general) came to be, and came to be different; because he was clearly an egregious racist; and because his methods of developing “scientific theory” were anything but scientific; we as honest, thinking people, have no choice but to debunk his theories.  We have no choice but to call him out for what he was—a second-rate naturalist, and an egregious racist.

…And this cannot happen soon enough.  I cannot understand how, in the United States of America today, we can continue to laud the accomplishments of Racist Darwin in our public schools. 

Admit it or not, we are not only condoning, but still teaching, racism in our schools (even if done in a de facto fashion).  That is a terrible thing! 

Remember also that according to reputable scholarship, 6 million Jews might not have been killed by Hitler, had it not been for the teachings of Darwin and the neo-Darwinists (reference again Weikart’s “From Darwin to Hitler,” 2004).  This too is an unforgivable shame. 

All I am asking Becky for is an honest debate—one not trumped by predisposition, ignorance, or racism.

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

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