Good Schools, Richard Dawkins, Darwin and Evolution

SELECTED
CONTENTS:

"...every group that wishes to see conflicting interests resolved reasonably, or is wise about the conditions under which it enjoys its own freedom, must be profoundly concerned with the state of freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of inquiry and teaching, freedom of press and other forms of communication, freedom of cultural opportunity and development. For in large measure intelligent moral choice depends upon them."
--Sidney Hook (1902-1988), disciple of John Dewey, and champion of pragmatism and democracy

Richard Dawkins

--A Dinosaur Defends the Indefensible

With regard to contemporary Darwinian apologists, at the top of the hierarchy sits Richard Dawkins, reader in zoology at Oxford University, author of several books on related subjects, and, occasional lecturer on college campuses

While I could fill pages pointing out his poor grasp of real science, I will limit myself to the following excerpt from "The Blind Watchmaker" (TBW), New York: WW Norton (c1987). It says enough all by itself. Here Dawkins writes:

"…In our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has, as its upper limit, the number of eligible planets in the universe. Given our ration of luck, we can then 'spend' it as a limited commodity over the course of our explanation of our own existence. If we use up almost all our ration of luck in our theory of how life gets started on a planet in the first place, then we are allowed to postulate very little more luck in subsequent parts of our theory, in, say, the cumulative evolution of brains and intelligence. If we don't use up all our ration of luck in our theory of the origin of life, we have some left over to spend on our theories of subsequent evolution, after cumulative selection has got going. If we want to use up most of our ration of luck in our theory of the origin of intelligence, then we haven't much left over to spend on our theory of the origin of life: we must come up with a theory that makes the origin of life almost inevitable. Alternatively, if we don't need our whole luck ration for these two stages of our theory, we can, in effect, use the surplus to postulate life elsewhere in the universe." (p. 146)

He has the gall to require us to give him the latitude to postulate a "ration of luck" of 1 in 100 billion billion (TBW p. 144). Without that "ration of luck," his theories fall flat. I always thought science was supposed to be empirical, and that "luck" was that make-believe stuff fools took to Vegas! In this selection Dawkins sounds more like a politician trying to spend the surplus, than a real scientist.

In my opinion, it is the blind arrogance of men such as Richard Dawkins that has brought our once great public school system to the state it is in today. All I can say about this totally-unscientific excuse for postulation is: "God deliver us from tenure!"

Not only is Dawkins' logic unscientific, his whole approach to the field is unscientific and unprofessional. He refers to those who disagree with him as "religious bigots" (recent Grand Valley State University talk), and "naïve Bible-thumpers" (TBW, p. 316). He saves some of his "best" low-life terms to describe his feelings about a recent book critical of Darwin. He refers to Richard Milton's book ("Shattering the Myths of Darwinism," Rochester, Vermont) as "looney," "stupid" and "drivel." Regarding Milton (the author), Dawkins calls him a "harmless fruitcake" in need of "psychiatric help." It is perfectly fine to have disagreements with works, and with authors; but it is never acceptable to use terms such as those in expressing professional displeasure.

In my opinion, Dawkins' arguments are very weak, and his style embarrassing. Perhaps this is because he views himself as a dinosaur defending the indefensible. ..Or, perhaps, Dawkins actually is 'dignity challenged.'

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

This site features a frank presentation of issues facing parents, taxpayers and schools in reforming schools in the twenty-first century. Good Schools promotes good schools, and explains what is necessary to achieve good schools. We are convinced that good schools can be obtained only with sound curriculum, which does not include the teaching of Darwin's theory of origin, or Darwin's theory of evolution. We believe that local school boards need to be empowered, and the influence of teachers' unions ought to be limited to labor-related issues. Teachers' unions should have no say in curriculum.

We are convinced that the teachings of Darwin, particularly Darwin's teachings on evolution, and Darwin's theories on origins, ought not be taught as fact. Darwin and Darwin's theories are not generally accepted by contemporary physicists and cosmologists, and, therefore, Darwin and Darwin's theories ought not be accepted whole-cloth by our schools of education, and ought not be presented as fact in public schools.

Because Richard Dawkins has set himself up as the number one defender of Darwin and Darwin's theory of evolution, we will go to some length explaining Dawkins' Darwin defenses, and we will do our best to explode Dawkins' Darwin defenses.

We seek to show from Darwin's own hand that Darwin, and Darwin's theory of evolution, are racist at the core. Darwin was a racist, Darwin's theory of evolution is racist, and Darwin's theory of origins is racist.

We further seek to show that Darwin's theory of evolution is not scientific. We show that racism, more than science, was behind Darwin and Darwin's theory of evolution, and Darwin's theory of origins.

Some of the terms commonly used on this site are: Darwin, Dawkins, schools, public schools, education, gun control, teachers, John Dewey, Littleton, racist, racism , school choice, African American, Sidney Hook, evolution, and Mike Carrier.

Bottom line--good schools require work. Good schools do not just happen. We need good schools, if we are to have a good nation.

BecauseRichard Dawkins has set himself up as the number one defender of Darwin and Darwin's theory of evolution, we will go to some length explaining Dawkins' Darwin defenses, and we will do our best to explode Dawkins' Darwin defenses.

Bottom line--good schools require work. Good schools do not just happen. We need good schools, if we are to have a good nation.