Good Schools, Jonathon, 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

Jonathon has Questions

I want to thank Jonathon for writing to us. I thought Jonathon's letters (there were two) were interesting enough to include in these pages, along with (of course) my comments. His interest was my article on Darwinism. Jonathon writes:

First Letter:

Dear Goodschools,
Hi, I came across your site in very a very random way (I can explain more
if you like). I'm having some trouble understanding exactly what values and
ideas you are trying to promote with your site. I think I am having a hard
time figuring out which quotes you are using as "good" quotes and which ones
you are including as "misguided" quotes. Is there some portion of the sight
that explains your values and ideals? An "About Us" section of some sort?
Thanks, Jonathon.

I responded to that letter:

Thank you Jonathon--

I appreciate you comments, and would like know more about the way you came
across it. I also would appreciate examples of where I seem ambiguous about
my position on issues. Thanks for your consideration, and I hope to hear
from you.

Goodschools:

Jonathon's second letter:

As for my confusion, I think it is probably just that--confusion on my end. Just to clarify your position, am I right to understand that you are against the Darwinian theory of evolution being taught in schools and in favor instead of creationism? --Jonathon

I responded to Jonathon's second letter:

Jonathan--

When you said you came across it in a "random" fashion, you were certainly
not kidding. Thanks for the explanation.

With regard to your question about my position, you wrote:

"As for my confusion, I think it is probably just that--confusion on my end. Just to clarify your position, am I right to understand that you are against the
Darwinian theory of evolution being taught in schools and in favor instead
of creationism?"

You are half right. I am against the teaching of Darwin's theories, and
neo-Darwinism, in public schools. There are two reasons for my objection: First, Darwin was ablatant racist, and his theories are based solidly upon his racist pre-disposition. Second: Darwin's theories, especially his notion of
origins, and natural selection, are totally unsound from the scientific
viewpoint. Simply stated, Darwin has no socially-redeeming value, except
that his theories keep creationism out of the schools.

...Which neatly takes us into the area of my thinking about which you are
not correct -- I am not an advocate for creationism. All I want to see is
an honest intellectual pursuit of the subject. The reason you had a
problem with me is you assumed that to be against Darwin meant that I had to
be pushing creationism. That is not the case.

There is, however, a logical reason why you would make that mistake. From
the early days of John Dewey, to the present, the main thing supporting
Darwinian teaching in the public schools was the fear of creationism. It
never mattered that Darwin was based on wrong thinking (bad science); nor
did it matter that it was formulated as a framework for racism. All that
mattered was that Dewey and his followers were able to use its
pseudo-scientific "proofs" to supplant creationism in public education.

Still, today, all that keeps it in the textbooks is fear of replacement. The
schools of education throughout the country (throughout the world, for that
matter) are simply afraid to digest what the real scientists are saying.
...All because of their fear of replacement. They fear that to pull the
legs out from under Darwin would mean they would be forced to accept
full-blown creationism. It does not. All it will mean is that we will
begin to look at the matter afresh, and, perhaps, be honest with ourselves,
and our students. Let's face it, Darwin represented a racist lie from the
beginning. It just happened to be a handy lie.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I will include them on the pages of
goodschools.com in the future. ...And, when you get a chance, pick up
Stuart Kauffman's "The Origins of Order." In it he states the Darwinian
biologists suffer from "physics envy." His is a very well-done work --
well worth your time and effort.

Goodschools

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.