Good Schools, George Denyer -- 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

First-time writer UK Writer George Denyer expresses anger directed at Goodschools

Recently I received a couple letters from one George Denyer, a gentleman from the UK. He was not happy with me. As always, I will print his letters verbatim. I will do this at the end of this article. For the sake of response, I will first print segments of his letter immediately below, which will include my comments:

Denyer Writes:

What is this nonsense about Kansas intending to set new standards in the teaching of biology without evolution?

My Response:

George is here referring to a Goodschools article, in which Goodschools merely reports what is taking place. It is not an opinion article.

Denyer Writes:

Without the fact [George italicizes 'fact'] of evolution there would not - indeed cannot - be any biology! The whole of biology depends on evolution for it's very existence!

My Response:

Usually I allow my writers a pass on bad grammar, and sometimes even for vague generalities. However, Denyer does not accompany his vitriol with supporting facts, as I would like to see under these circumstances. Also, Denyer is less than polite in expressing his disdain for the American educational system (a view that I actually, howbeit politely, share with him); therefore I will not afford him any special courtesy regarding his errors.
Denyer writes: "Without the fact of evolution there would not - indeed cannot - be any biology!" First of all, Denyer here appears to be equating Darwinism with evolution. That is a mistake--one can accept evolution, and reject Darwinism; the two terms are often used interchangeably by 'educators,' but never by real scientists. In his next sentence, Denyer writes: "The whole of biology depends on evolution for it's very existence!" Denyer is evidently very fond of using exclamation points--this is commonly done when a writer doesn't have an idea, but simply wants a pass. It is a little like shouting on paper. ...But, that's really not my complaint here. The word "it's" is a contraction, not a possessive; it simply represents a shortened form of "it is." I suppose Denyer's Spell Check doesn't catch that type of mistake. Furthermore, I think that were it I constructing this sentence, I would have used "could not" instead of "cannot." Why? Well, he is here balancing out his "would not," so "could not" would be better suited than the contraction "cannot."
I would give Denyer a "B+" for high-school-level sentence construction; a "C" for freshman "Remedial English"; but a "D" for post-graduate--the question is, on what level do we wish to communicate?

Denyer Writes:

What is the problem with America? It's as if you suddenly took a backward intellectual step spanning about five hundred years! Are you trying to turn your children into a bunch of uneducated dolts? Don't you think American standards of education lag far enough already behind those of more educationally advanced countries? Look at worldwide statistics, the last time I checked, you were 49th! Do you think this figure will be improved by pretending evolution is wrong, or saying it's just a theory? You don't seem to know what a theory is, it appears you think it's an idea...it's not.

My Response:

I love to see people impassioned about what they think. Denyer is certainly impassioned; it's just that he seems to have a problem with the "thinking" part. I do congratulate him with his new-found ability properly to use the contraction "it's." Kudos to you, George Denyer for this accomplishment.
I do, however, question his syntax: "Don't you think American Standards of education lag far enough already behind those of more educationally advanced countries?" I think Denyer here intends: "Don't you think American standards of education already lag far enough behind those of the more educationally-advanced countries?" That would make more sense.

My answer would (of course) be: "Yes, the US does have serious problems with its educational system, and its low standards." That is precisely why I advocate the teaching of "real science," as opposed to the make-believe science foisted upon the youth of the world by pseudo-scientists such as George Denyer.

To George I would say this: "George, I love you, I really appreciate that you had the guts to write to me, and I would like to respect you, but you are the problem; and you are apparently too stuck in your ways, or perhaps, too stupid, to know it." Please respond to my emails.

Denyer Writes:

If you will open your evolutionarily imperfect - or perhaps badly designed - eyes, you can see evolution in action; I suspect however, that you are the kind of person who doesn't want to see it so I won't waste my time showing you how. I just wanted to inform you (in case you didn't know) that there are some of us out here that will not let you spout drivel, unchallenged.

My Response:

George, Darling, if you do not like what I write, then challenge it. All you delivered is a diatribe. You provided nothing but a highly-energized personal attack. I do not mind personal attacks, but please back them up. It makes the whole dialogue more interesting if you have the guts to back up what you write. How about some facts?

Denyer Writes:

Bear in mind also that the World Wide Web is just that - world-wide, your long established American crutch of insularity will not support you here. This is the real world, it contains real people with live real lives; people whom have long since severed the ignorant bonds that still, sadly, shackle you.

George W. Denyer

My response:

George, I really think I like you. You seem like the sort of man I would like to sit down with and have a conversation. In the past I have enjoyed visiting France. I have a bit of an issue with Chirac right now--perhaps I should spend more time in the UK. Could I call you the next time I am in the UK? I would like to visit with you. I have emailed you to elaborate on your letters, but to date you have not responded. Please help me be kind to you.

At any rate, Denyer writes: "This is the real world, it contains real people with live real lives; people whom have long since severed the ignorant bonds that still, sadly, shackle you." He intends: "This is the real world, it contains real people with real lives; people who have long since severed the bonds of ignorance that still, sadly, shackle you."

George, Darling, you are the guys that developed the English language, why do you so severely butcher it? You don't need "Spell Check," you need "Brain Check." Then, whenever you start writing without first engaging your brain, your computer will slap you. We, on the provincial side of the Pond, have that software available right now. It is produced by a company called "Microhard." ...Order it today! (I used an exclamation point for George's enjoyment.)

George Denyer's Letter Verbatim:

What is this nonsense about Kansas intending to set new standards in the teaching of biology without evolution?

Without the fact of evolution there would not - indeed cannot - be any biology! The whole of biology depends on evolution for it's very existence!

What is the problem with America? It's as if you suddenly took a backward intellectual step spanning about five hundred years! Are you trying to turn your children into a bunch of uneducated dolts? Don't you think American standards of education lag far enough already behind those of more educationally advanced countries? Look at worldwide statistics, the last time I checked, you were 49th! Do you think this figure will be improved by pretending evolution is wrong, or saying it's just a theory? You don't seem to know what a theory is, it appears you think it's an idea...it's not.

If you will open your evolutionarily imperfect - or perhaps badly designed - eyes, you can see evolution in action; I suspect however, that you are the kind of person who doesn't want to see it so I won't waste my time showing you how. I just wanted to inform you (in case you didn't know) that there are some of us out here that will not let you spout drivel, unchallenged.

Bear in mind also that the World Wide Web is just that - world-wide, your long established American crutch of insularity will not support you here. This is the real world, it contains real people with live real lives; people whom have long since severed the ignorant bonds that still, sadly, shackle you.

George W. Denyer

(George Denyer wrote a second letter ( We are hoping for more--we like George). Would you like to read George Denyer's second letter to Goodschools? Click here to check out further correspondence by George Denyer.

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

--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.