Point #1:

Chandler writes:  "I must admit that when I read your ridiculous accusations of "Darwin was a racist" I thought it was funny how misinterpreted Darwin really is (at least by you).  Your page reads:

 "The first hint that Darwin was a racist can be seen in the subtitle
selected for his "Origin of Species."  The words chosen were:   "The
Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life".  Whom do you suppose Darwin tagged the "Unfavored Races?"  This subtitle has been eliminated from all modern printings of the book, but it remains on the original. "

Um...no.  What Darwin means by "favored races" is races OF LIFE and not OF PEOPLE...for example, all human beings are favored over monkeys and other animals. Unfavored races are groups of animals that don't survive the pressures of evolution...that can't adapt.."

My response:   Your assessment of Darwin is misleading.  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)   We cannot tolerate racism in any form.

Point #2:

Chandler writes:  Anyways, what is teaching the THEORY of evolution to students hurting???  They aren't being forced to beleive [sic] in it, and what if it is presented as just a theory and not acutal [sic] fact?  Then it could be taught alongside other creation theories.

My response:  Chandler, I am against teaching any bad science.  It is never acceptable to teach what we know to be flawed.  Consider this:  What if we taught that the earth was flat, or that it was at the center of the universe?  Just how would such erroneous teaching further the educational process?   ...Or, how would it benefit science if  we taught that there were no mathematical axioms?  

In its purest sense, education is the passing down the most accurate body of information known to exist.  Darwinism is both racist, and very bad science.  

Point #3:

Chandler writes:  "Though some of the other quotes you quoted do sound racist, THEY WERE NOT MADE BY DARWIN, but his followers.  Having racist followers does not make you racist.  

My response:   There is a kernel of truth to what you have written here -- having racist followers does not make one racist.   In Darwin's case, he clearly establishes his own racism.  In fact, racism is the main thrust of his work.  His followers are merely picking up his teachings and developing them.  Both Darwin, and his followers, were racists.  ...Some without even knowing it.  Darwin's theory of evolution is at its core racist.  If one buys it in any significant form, one is a racist.  

Point #4:

Chandler writes:  " I assume that you are a creationist, and creationists can be racist too...everyone can.

My response:  It is not safe to assume anything that is not clearly stated.  It is not safe to assume that I am a creationist.  All I have written in these pages is that I am strongly against racism, and I believe in stating only what I can prove.  Does that, in your thinking, make me a "Creationist?"  Interesting!

I would agree with you that some creationists are also racists.  I have a problem with all forms of racism.

Point #5:

Chandler writes:  "Even if you considered Darwin a racist, how does that discredit his theory???  Everyone in history at one time was racist...now, let's just drop everything from schools that was learned during that period!  We can now erase trigonometry, computers and many many novels from school curriculums!  Does that make ANY sense??? NO.  And either does your reason for kicking Darwinism out of schools.  I do agree that it shouldn't be presented as fact in schools, but it still needs to be taught, perhaps hand-in-hand with creationistic theories and Intelligent Design theory."

My response:   Chandler's argument here represents bad logic:  While it is not incorrect to argue from the general to the specific, One has first to prove the general.  Chandler has given no evidence to support his assertion that everyone in history was at one time a racist.  

Furthermore, I think it is utterly fair to toss out a theory, the root of which is racist.  Darwin created his work for a purpose, to discredit, and to provide a basis for the destruction of, the so-called "Unfavored Races."  It was not science, it was designed as a bible for holocaust.  It has no redeeming value.

As far as discrediting Darwin's theory:  Today one has to look long and hard for a responsible Darwin supporter in the nation's scientific community (schools of arts and sciences, not schools of education.)   Read what is being written by the world's top physicists, and cosmologists.  They all laugh at Darwin.  Darwin is discredited by all the real scientists.   Darwin's only home is in our educational system, top to bottom.

Besides, one has only to look at Darwin's motivation to become suspicious of his work:  He wrote his work in order to provide a basis for the destruction of the uncivilized races of mankind.  He was a racist, not a scientist.  

Point #6:

Chandler writes:  "... I do agree that it (Darwinism) shouldn't be presented as fact in schools, but it still needs to be taught, perhaps hand-in-hand with creationistic theories and Intelligent Design theory."

My response:   Chandler, I sort of agree with you here.  Darwinism should be taught in schools, and this is the context under which I would teach it:  

I would place the following in all the history books: 

"It is a simple fact that America was substantially racist in the 1920's.   Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the secularist movement of the day quickly espoused Darwin's racist evolutionary theories.  Educational theorists such as John Dewey, playing off the fallout from the Scopes trial, were able to make Darwin's theory the mantra of public education philosophy. 

"As the educational awakening of the early 2000s gained momentum,  American education entered what can be called its post-racist period.  During that period thinking people cringed at Darwin's hatred for the African peoples, and began to view his theories for what they were -- disgraceful racism.  

"The speed with which this change took place was accelerated as educators looked beyond their schools of education for direction.  When they looked into the scientific communities, which were responsible for doing the actual research, they found that serious scholarship for years had actually laughed at Darwin and his theory of natural selection.  

"Real scientists,  such as Stuart A. Kauffman drove the final nails in Darwin's coffin with words such as these:  "Natural selection, operating on variations which are random with respect to usefulness, appears a slim force for order in a chaotic world.  ...  Our legacy from Darwin, powerful as it is, has fractures as its foundations" (p.643, The Origins of Order, New York:  Oxford University Press, 1993).

"With the end of Darwinism the era of racism in America came to an end.  

Point #7:

Chandler writes:  

...But by saying that just because YOU think Darwin was racist his ideas should be discredited is nonsense.  YOU are in fact being racist, not against a race of skin color or ethinicity [sic], but ideas: just because you don't like Darwin's theory you are trying to discredit it by throwing accusations about.  And you are also making prejudicial judgements [sic] about evolutionists by saying "no wonder Hitler picked up Darwin's ideas of evolution..." and that is worrying and pretty darn prejudiced.  Now I do believe in evolution and it would be a big waste of time to try and convince you that it is real.  And it would be a big waste of time to convice [sic] me that creationism (at least in the traditional sense) is real.  Religion is a personal thing and it shouldn't matter to you what I beleive[sic].  So stop trying to get YOUR way by making it seem like MY way is evil.  Because it isn't.  And either[sic] is creationism.

My response:   

• Certainly I am not evidencing "racism" by taking a stand against  racism.  You might think me mean, stupid, arrogant, silly, etc., but it is not correct to assume I am racist because I write against the theories of Darwin.  

• I make no accusations that I cannot, and do not, prove.  Those facts might make you uneasy, but that does not change the nature of their veracity.

• Darwin's followers have been responsible for terrible acts.  It is clear that those followers took their lead directly from Darwin's racist words.

• As far as trying to convince you not to "believe" in evolution:  I would not be so imposing.  If you want to "believe" what cannot be verified, and what is blatantly racist, so be it.  That is your right in this wonderful land of ours.  But I do not want your racist fairytales foisted upon the minds of our children.

• I am not trying to make you seem "evil."  I do, however, consider racism to be the single greatest mistake this nation has ever made.  ...And racism, in all its forms, makes me very angry.  I regret that you choose to cling to your racism.  I would like to see you let it go, and move on.  You would be a much happier person for it.

(I strongly recommend "The Origins of Order," by Stuart A. Kauffman (Oxford University Press, 1993).  In the Preface of this book, Dr. Kauffman writes:  This book is an attempt to focus attention on new themes in developmental and evolutionary biology. It is, in fact, an attempt to include Darwinism in a broader contest..."  It is not light reading, but quite enlightening.) 

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

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