Descent of Man, Women, 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

If Women Only Had Balls

(Text quoted from “The Descent of Man.” Prometheus Books. New York. c1998.)

Who ever said that Darwin was boring? I will admit that from time to time I, too, may get a little bogged down with Darwin's penchant for detail, such as the egg-laying habits of the Eurasian cuckoo, or the diverse mouthparts of various insects. However, when it comes to his discussion on the differences between men and women, Darwin is very interesting.

For instance, Darwin observed that Negro women have a skin several shades lighter than Negro men; that women are less courageous, pugnacious and energetic than men; that women have smaller brains than men, and that women possess less inventive genius than do men (pp.576,577).

"Woman seems to differ from man," Darwin writes, "in mental disposition, chiefly in her greater tenderness and less selfishness; and this holds good even with savages [read "Negroes and Aborigines"]... Woman, owing to her maternal instincts, displays these qualities towards her infants in an eminent degree; therefore it is likely that she would often extend them towards her fellow-creatures. ...It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races [read "Negroes and Aborigines"], and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization" (pp. 584-84).

What Darwin is suggesting here is that the faculties of which women excel are actually throwbacks to a more primitive time, as opposed to the superior intellectual powers resident in European men. Regarding this Darwin writes: "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman--whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. ...We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on 'Hereditary Genius,' that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman" (p. 584).

"Amongst the half-human progenitors of man, and amongst savages [read "Negroes and Aborigines"], there have been struggles between the males during many generations for the possession of the females. But mere bodily strength and size would do little for victory, unless associated with courage, perseverance, and determined energy. ...Now, when two men are put into competition, or a man with a woman, both possessed of every mental quality in equal perfection, save that one has higher energy, perseverance, and courage, the latter will generally become more eminent in every pursuit, and will gain the ascendancy. He may be said to possess genius--for genius has been declared by a great authority to be patience; and patience, in this sense, means unflinching, undaunted perseverance" (p. 585).

Darwin states that it is this ability of men to develop "unflinching, undaunted perseverance" that makes them intellectually "superior to women" (p. 585). ...And when, exactly, do these amazing characteristics kick in? ...At puberty, of course. Darwin further explains this conclusion by pointing out that "eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities" (p. 585). "It is, indeed, fortunate," Darwin continues, "that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen."

As a footnote to this section, Darwin writes: "An observation by Vogt bears on this subject: he says, 'It is a remarkable circumstance, that the difference between the sexes, as regards the cranial cavity, increases with the development of the race, so that the male European excels much more the female, than the negro the negress. Welcker confirms this statement of Huschke from his measurements of negro and German skulls'" (p. 586). So, not only are men likely to possess greater intellectual capacity than women (in Darwin's eyes), but, according to Darwin, white guys possess a greater level of superiority over their women than do Black guys over their women. So much for political correctness.

It is absolutely clear that, in Darwin's mind, the only way women would ever be able to compete with men on an intellectual level would be for women to grow balls; "natural selection" didn't seem to be improving their (women's) lot in life, according to Darwin (p.586). In fact, Darwin, suggests, the gulf seems to be widening.

I would like to see the lecture hall when this this part of Darwin's teaching was delivered. I doubt that anyone would be so stupid as to present these teachings as part of his lecture; except, perhaps, a not-so-bright eunuch; or someone about to become one.

Every day I become more amazed at Darwin's popularity among "educators" and pseudo-scientists. Have they never read his teachings? I really think not. I think that the education departments throughout this country are simply content to turn out mind-numbed robots eagerly accepting of whatever is regurgitated in their mouths by mind-numbed professors. I think that there is, throughout the elite education establishment, a self-replicating aversion to anything resembling primary source material.

My guess is that there are no such "educators" or pseudo-scientific types reading this far into this article; most people of that persuasion read only headlines. However, if any of you guys got this far, consider yourselves to have been bitten in the rear end by a near primary source. How did it feel?

Be sure to check out an upcoming paper on Darwin's Descent (Developing).

--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.