Good Schools, Melisa Myers, 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

Mr. Rob Dyson

--A Science Teacher Comments on Darwin

Mr. Rob Dyson, a science teacher, has taken the time to respond to Goodschools.com, the Darwin article in particular. I want to thank Mr. Dyson for his polite and thoughtful comments. While I have issues with some of Mr. Dyson's comments, I am convinced that he is a very good science teacher. I will first print what Mr. Dyson writes (verbatim), then address some of what I consider to be the more salient aspects of his letter.

Mr. Dyson writes:

I have found Goodschools.com to be interesting reading. I am concerned, however, with the position that Goodschools has taken concerning evolution. I am not opposed to removing evolution from the curriculum on the grounds that parents disprove of evolution. Parents should have the authority to determine what their children should and shouldn't be exposed to at school. If science is taught at school, and if it is also decided by the "curriculum determining process" that evolution should be taught, then the ideas concerning evolution should be based on those ideas that are most widely accepted by the "scientific community". Where do you find this scientific community? You will find it in the scientific journals that are reputable. The problem with teaching creationism as science is that the only research from creationists is published by journals that were created to promote creationism. Until a scientist makes a discovery that supports creationism, publishes it in a journal read by many experts in the appropriate field, and shows that their findings upholds against the criticism and subsequent research, only then can that scientific discovery be considered to be a valid explanation.

If you do not want your children to be taught evolution, tell your child's teacher and principal. That should be enough to ensure that your child is not exposed to other views on the origin of life. Let's be careful, however, in attempting to force feed a scientific explanation into the schools while bypassing the scientists. Remember, it is the insertion of topics by various lobbying groups, that frustrates many of us regarding the school curriculum. Let's leave the scientific body of knowledge to the scientists. Don't forget about your veto power, however.

Rob Dyson, Science Teacher

I respond:

Point #1:

Dyson writes: "I am not opposed to removing evolution from the curriculum on the grounds that parents disprove of evolution. Parents should have the authority to determine what their children should and shouldn't be exposed to at school."

My response: I find it hard to argue with the first part of Mr. Dyson's statement. Parents should, in my opinion, have the authority to determine what their children are exposed to at school. However, parental choice has nothing to do with the banishment of Darwin from the curriculum. If Darwinism was good science, I would jump up and down on the soap box along with the NEA and most professors in our nations' schools of education. Parental choice has nothing to do with it. Darwinism has been demonstrated over and over again to be very bad science. It does not have anything to do with a parents' right to choose. No serious cosmologist or physicist (outside our schools of education), hold Darwinism in esteem. The most noted defender today is Richard Dawkins, and his arguments are easily demonstrated to be silly diatribes. Darwinism needs to be outed because it is bad science.

...But, not only is Darwinism bad science, it is blatantly racist. We cannot tolerate racism in any form.

Point #2:

Dyson writes: If science is taught at school, and if it is also decided by the "curriculum determining process" that evolution should be taught, then the ideas concerning evolution should be based on those ideas that are most widely accepted by the "scientific community"

My response: Mr. Dyson makes a very interesting comment here, when he writes that the "ideas concerning evolution should be based on those ideas that are most widely accepted by the "scientific community." ' This is where the problem lies. If we consider the "scientific community" to be the body of professors who teach and write science in our schools of education, then he is wrong. With very few exceptions, the professors who teach in these teacher-prep schools would not know a primary source if they stepped in it. For the most part, all that the schools of education do is regurgitate political correctness. Intellectual honesty demands that we go to the real scientists, the physicists, cosmologists and biologists, who actually do the original research. Those are the people I quoted in my piece on Darwin. It is a simple fact: "real" scientists consider Darwinism pure rubbish.

When Mr. Dyson talks about the "curriculum determining process," he touches upon the problem. The process here is flawed, seriously flawed. How else can we view it? It dogmatizes bad science, and legitimizes racism. It is flawed!

Point #3:

Dyson writes: "The problem with teaching creationism as science is that the only research from creationists is published by journals that were created to promote creationism. Until a scientist makes a discovery that supports creationism, publishes it in a journal read by many experts in the appropriate field, and shows that their findings upholds against the criticism and subsequent research, only then can that scientific discovery be considered to be a valid explanation."

My response: I could not agree more. That is exactly why you will find that no where in Goodschools.com do I advocate the teaching of creationism. I have never even brought the subject up. Why, then, does every educator come back with that argument? Are we to think that it is somehow perfectly fine to teach bad, racist science, simply because we fear creationism? That has to be what the so-called "curriculum determining process" believes.

Why can we not be satisfied to teach what we know to be true, and leave it there. It just happens that Darwinism is not true, it is bad science, and it is the laughing stock of the serious scientific community. On top of that, it is blatantly racist. We should not stick our heads in the sand simply because we fear what we might learn if we start looking at the truth

Point #4:

Dyson writes: If you do not want your children to be taught evolution, tell your child's teacher and principal. That should be enough to ensure that your child is not exposed to other views on the origin of life.

My response: While this comment seems (on the surface) to be quite fair, and sound, the logic behind it is actually totally fallacious. It is never acceptable to allow untruths to be perpetrated on our youth. It is wrong. Darwin was a racist, and his science in unscientific. How can it ever be ok to use tax dollars to propagate lies? How can we allow racism to prevail? It makes no sense to send me to my child's teacher to ask him/her not to tell my child any lies today, and, "Please do not to teach my child to hate today." All of our kids need to have the best education possible. Darwinism is not accepted outside our public schools, and our infamous schools of education. It is taught simply because the "curriculum determining process" fears alternatives. The rationale behind this inordinate fear of losing Darwinism is no different from that of the reactionaries who insisted on white-knuckling the "flat-earth theory" long after it had been disproved. Today's reactionaries, however, are not to be found in the Church. Today's reactionaries, the ones responsible for this Darwinism nonsense, reside in the ranks of the NEA, and in this nation's schools of education. ...But the same emotion is responsible in both cases -- fear of the truth.

Point #5:

Dyson writes: Remember, it is the insertion of topics by various lobbying groups, that frustrates many of us regarding the school curriculum. Let's leave the scientific body of knowledge to the scientists.

My response: I agree with with Mr. Dyson here: The lobbying groups have no place determining curriculum. Unfortunately, there remains no reasonable explanation for the existence of Darwinism in the curriculum except that it has been placed there by coercion of some sort; probably by some "lobbying group," such as the NEA.

Our schools must forget about political correctness, rise above fear, and simply teach the truth.

...And, by all mean, abolish racism. It is time to Out Racist Darwin.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Dyson for submitting his letter to me. He is undoubtedly a very bright, concerned teacher. I would feel comfortable having my child study under him.

Update--Dyson Responds to above article:

Thanks for posting my comments. I have read yours and even though I might not agree with every one of them I appreciate your effort in creating this forum. In a democracy, the exchange of ideas is essential. For some reason many people have become unable to politely disagree. This exchange of opinions was fun. Thanks for your efforts. ---Rob Dyson

.My final comment: I

(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)

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, Richard Dawkins 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.