Good Schools, David Dawkins, Darwin and Evolution--Correspondence--John states his views

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

Second Letter from John, and My Response

Yes, I'd like to be taught the unbiased truth on evolutionism, but I would
rather not be taught something that there is no proof of, other than the
Bible, which I believe to be untrustworthy for many reasons. If you are
proposing that all children be taught the Christian creationism and switch
to Christianity, I believe that you are going to have a very hard time.
If you want to teach me the truth, don't teach me creationism, because I
do _not_ think that to be the truth. I'm not clinging to Darwin's theory
of evolution simply because I don't like creationism; I'm not clinging to
anything at all. I simply [along with thousands of other children] do not
wish to be taught creationism, and I certainly don't wish it to be taught
in my school, or anywhere else, for that matter .. except public schools
and churches, which people go to by _choice_. If there can be a universal
law of evolution or something else devised, which doesn't interfere with
the religious beliefs of children, I'm all for it.

--John

The following are portions of the above letter, and my response.

John writes:

"Yes, I'd like to be taught the unbiased truth on evolutionism, but I would rather not be taught something that there is no proof of, other than the Bible, which I believe to be untrustworthy for many reasons."

Response:

I would agree with John here. I think we would be in error If we make the Bible the principle source of study in the sciences.   The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise, and to regard it as such does disservice to both the academic disciplines, and to the Bible.   I suggest we read Stuart A. Kauffman's "The Origins of Order," Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

I do believe that John misses the point here. The field of study is not the unbiased truth on "evolution." The field of study is "origins and order."   "Evolution" is a part of that field of study, but it is not the basis of it.

I find quite interesting that the recurring theme in all the responses to my Darwin essay is the concern with Darwin's replacement. I remember when the principle argument on this matter was the "ontological" argument (a la David Dawkins).   Apparently our schools of education have taken their approach directly out of the medieval Church playbook.

John writes:

"If there can be a universal law of evolution or something else devised, which doesn't interfere with the religious beliefs of children, I'm all for it."

Response:

The problem with John's statement here is that he insists on making his religious predispositions his "truth filter." Since when does good scholarship bend curriculum to fit the feelings of the students?

Personally, I am not concerned about what each individual student feels to be truth. I am interested only what can be demonstrated to be truth. I am certainly not not in favor of making up "another" fairy tale about origins and natural selection by simply employing the "find" feature of my word processor (to remove the name of "Darwin.").

This whole academic mindset reminds me of the Church during the Middle Ages. No wonder our public schools are producing products (students) who test at the very bottom (in the sciences) of the scale of all industrialized nations.  The problem is not the students, it is with our highly-racist system.

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 David 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.