Because
Linda refused to accept my challenge and
because she was willing to accept Darwin’s
view of Black People, as summarized here, I
will critically address her comments in the
pages of Goodschools.
Just as I
have done with previous letters, I include
selections of the writer’s letters, followed
by my comments. ...And, as always, to be
fair I include all of her letters verbatim
at the end of this article. (Not only do I
want to thank Linda for her emails, I thank
her for sending Goodschools the above
picture unsolicited.)
Linda writes:
I just discovered your website last night. I
am curious. Why have you spent time to make
this website? Are you a Creationist?
Goodschools Response:
I responded by asking Linda why she would
ask me those two questions.
Linda writes:
Mike,
I’m glad you wrote me back. I asked those two questions because I
am curious to know where you’re coming
from. Will you answer me now?
Goodschools Response:
I responded by asking Linda why she felt it
necessary to ask me those two questions. I
wrote:
I wanted to know why you are "curious to know" where I'm coming
from. The reason I am curious as to your
thinking on this is simple. Darwin was a
racially-biased frustrated preacher, and a
third-rate observer of the world around
him. He disdained scientific discipline. I
demonstrate those facts beyond
question. So, what difference does it make
where I'm coming from?
If you can show me something on my website
that would suggest that I suffer from some
debilitating prejudice, I would be
interested in hearing about it. Truth is
truth, no matter the source. What
difference should it make if I am black,
white, man, woman, Jew, Muslim, Christian,
gay or straight, as long as I state
objective, observable facts? I simply choose to
let the facts speak for themselves, without
qualifiers or predispositions; which is
quite unlike Darwin.
Linda writes:
You’re making too big of deal out of this. It is starting to look
like you are hiding from something. I have
no intentions of getting drawn into a debate
with you. I simply want to know if you
consider yourself a Christian and believe in
Creationism. Is Jesus your savior or not?
Yes or No?
Goodschools Response:
I
responded to Linda like this: Thank you for
your diligence. I am sorry if it is
starting to look to you like I am hiding
from something. I try to make it a habit
not to hide from anything or anyone.
Furthermore, I too am not interested in
debating the notion of creationism. To
address your questions regarding these
issues on Goodschools would not have been
appropriate. Your questions were personal,
not scholarly. The reason I am hesitant
to engage you on a personal level is
simple--Goodschools is not a dating
website. (I then asked Linda how she
discovered Goodschools.)
Linda writes:
I happened to find your website after searching for something
like ‘Darwin in schools’ using Google. I
was interested to learn more about the
status of the creation vs. evolution
conflict going on in our schools. I think
the Christian Right are [sic.] reacting to
Evolution like they did to Galileo.
Linda then quotes the following statement by
James Trefil (1001 Things Everyone Should
Know About Science): “…one of the favorite techniques of creationists is to argue that
since scientists are in disagreement about
this or that point of evolutionary theory,
the fact of evolution must be thrown out and
their version of creation accepted. This is
roughly equivalent to overhearing two people
arguing about whether an office is on the 52nd
or 53rd floor of the Empire State
Building and concluding the building must be
one story high.”
Goodschools Response:
I
did think it interesting that Linda would
quote from James Trefil. He is the perfect
example of a non-scientist. He writes and
teaches for the popular audience, not the
scientific community. He has done no
original research of any weight. In his own
bio his major claim to fame is the
volume of his writings, as measured by the
cubic foot (not cogency); for “teaching
science to non-scientists;” and for
developing a “new kind of curriculum.”
Trefil is an educator, not a research
scientist.
In spite of the weakness of Linda’s choice,
I responded to her like this: If Trefil
reflects your thinking on the debate, how
would you view the following: Darwin
exhibited a strong pre-disposition against
dark-skinned people, whom he referred to as
"savages." To Darwin, the term "savage"
represented an animal, not a real human
being--an animal which had a brain smaller
than the "civilized" man [read: "white
man"]; was less athletic; was weaker; was
dumber; cheated more; was not noble; was
prone to alcoholism; was not capable of
being a genius; smelled badly; represented a
different sub-species than "civilized" man,
if not a totally different species
altogether; had much in common with idiots;
and had smaller "brain cases" than did
"civilized man." …And, of course, Darwin's
favorite "savage" whipping boys were those
whom he called "Negroes." I asked Linda if
she would view that as a Trefil "minor"
problem with Darwin's thinking on
evolution? She responded, but did not
comment on my question.
Linda writes:
In a previous letter you [goodschools] wrote [concerning Darwin],
“He disdained scientific discipline. I
demonstrate those facts beyond question.”
Beyond question? No scientist or
investigator of the truth would think that
way. This is evidence that you are not
completely without bias and it reveals you
have a hidden agenda. It is also another
example of the misleading sensationalism you
use throughout your website.
Goodschools Response:
That seems like a fair enough challenge. The truth is that I do
demonstrate beyond question that Darwin
disregarded, if not totally disdained,
scientific discipline. Any honest reading
of his Descent, or my
Review of same, clearly demonstrates
that fact. I wish only that Linda would
read my
Review. Instead, she merely criticizes
and accuses, while refusing to read my
arguments.
As far as my stating Darwin’s weakness in this regard somehow sets
me apart from and in opposition to the
scientific community, perhaps Linda ought to
read the works of real scientists, not those
of the popular hack writers working in the
educational community. For instance:
1. "Considering the way the prebiotic soup
is referred to in so many discussions of the
origin of life as an already established
reality, it comes as something of a shock to
realize that there is absolutely no positive
evidence for its existence." (p.261, Michael
Denton, Molecular Biologist (Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1985)
"The complexity of the simplest known type
of cell is so great that it is impossible to
accept that such an object could have been
thrown together suddenly by some kind of
freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an
occurrence would be indistinguishable from a
miracle." (p.264)
"It is astonishing to think that this
remarkable piece of machinery, which
possesses the ultimate capacity to construct
every living thing that ever existed on
Earth, from giant redwood to the human
brain, can construct all its own components
in a matter of minutes and weigh less than
10 - 16 grams. It is of the order of
several thousand million million times
smaller than the smallest piece of machinery
ever constructed by man." (p.338)
"The twentieth century would be
incomprehensible without the Darwinian
revolution. The social and political
currents which have swept the world in the
past eighty years would have been impossible
without its intellectual sanction. … The
influence of the evolutionary theory on
fields far removed from biology is one of
the most spectacular examples in history of
how a highly speculative ides for which
there is no really hard scientific evidence
can come to fashion the thinking of a whole
society and the social and moral
transformation it caused in western thought,
one might have hoped that Darwinian theory …
a theory of such cardinal importance, a
theory that literally changed the world,
would have been something more than
metaphysics, something more than a myth."
(p. 358)
2. "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has
helped nothing in the progress of science.
It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure,
Former: President of the Biological
Society of Stassbourg, Director of the
Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of
Research at the French national Centre of
Scientific Research, writing in "The
Advocate," March 8, 1984, p. 17)
3. Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British
Museum of Natural History, London, writes:
"One of the reasons I started taking this
anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me
that I had been working on this stuff for
twenty years and there was not one thing I
knew about it. That's quite a shock to
learn that one can be so misled so long. …so
for the last few weeks I've tried putting a
simple question to various people and groups
of people. Question is: Can you tell me
anything you know about evolution, any one
thing that is true? I tried that question
on the geology staff at the Field Museum of
Natural History and the only answer I got
was silence. I tried it on the members of
the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the
University of Chicago, a very prestigious
body of evolutionists, and all I got there
was silence for a long time and eventually
one person said, ' I do know one thing -- it
ought not to be taught in high school.'"
(Keynote address at the American Museum of
Natural History, New York City, 5 November,
1981)
4. "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution
may be one of our fastest-growing
controversial minorities… Many of the
scientists supporting this position hold
impressive credentials in science." (Larry
Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin,"
Science Digest Special, Winter, 1979,
pp.9ff)
5. "One is forced to conclude that many
scientists and technologists pay lip-service
to Darwinian theory only because it
supposedly excludes a Creator…" (Dr.
Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer,
Anthropology, Sydney Un Quadrant, Oct.,
1982, p.44)
6. "Today our duty is to destroy the myth
of evolution, considered as a simple,
understood, and explained phenomenon which
keeps rapidly unfolding before us. … The
deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not
always, since some people, owing to their
sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and
refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and
falsity of their beliefs." (Pierre-Paul
Grasse, Past-President, French Academy of
Science, "Evolution of Living Organisms,"
Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.8)
7.
Wolfgang
Smith, Mathematician and Physicist, Prof. of
Mathematics, Oregon State University, Former
Math Instructor at MIT, writing in
"Teilhardism and the New Religion: A
Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of
Darwin" (Tan Books and Publishers, 1988,
pp.1,2) writes: "Today, a hundred and
twenty-eight years after it was first
promulgated, the Darwinian theory of
evolution stands under attack as never
before. … The fact is that in recent times
there has been increasing dissent on the
issue within academic and professional
ranks, and that a growing number of
respectable scientists are defecting from
the evolutionist camp. It is interesting,
moreover, that for the most part these
'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on
the basis of religious faith or biblical
persuasions, but on strictly scientific
grounds, and in some instances regretfully,
as one could say. …We are told dogmatically
that Evolution is an established fact; but
we are never told who has established it,
and by what means. We are told, often
enough, that the doctrine is founded upon
evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is
henceforward above all verification, as well
as being immune from any subsequent
contradiction'; but we are left entirely in
the dark on the crucial question wherein,
precisely, this evidence consists."
8.
"In
fact, evolution became in a sense a
scientific religion; almost all scientists
accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend'
their observations to fit in with it."
(H.J. Lipson, F.R.S, "A Physicist Looks at
Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980)
9.
"Scientists
who go about teaching that evolution is a
fact of life are great con-men, and the
story they are telling may be the greatest
hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do
not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N.
Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy
Commission. As quoted in: "Evolution and
the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises
Limited, 1983, Title Page)
10.
"I
myself am convinced that the theory of
evolution, especially the extent to which
it's been applied, will be one of the great
jokes in the history books of the future.
Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy
and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted
with the incredible credulity that it has."
(Malcom Muggeridge, Well-known Journalist
and Philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University
of Waterloo)
11.
"After
having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found
itself in the unenviable position of having
to create a mythology of its own: namely,
the assumption that what, after long effort
could not be proved to take place today,
had, in truth, taken place in the primeval
past." (Loren Eiseley, PhD., writing in
"Anthropology -- The Immense Journey,"
Random House, NY, 1957, p. 199)
12.
"Natural
selection, operating on variations which are
random with respect to usefulness, appears a
slim force for order in a chaotic world.
…Our legacy from Darwin…has fractures as its
foundations. …It has been said that a
weakness of some biologists is persistent
physics-envy: the seeking of a deep
structure to biology. Rest content, is the
sensible refrain, with middle-level theories
capturing parts of how systems work..” (p.
643, Stuart A. Kauffman, PhD., “The origins
of Order,”Oxford University Press, 1993)
13. The following citations are from I.L.
Cohen's "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in
Probability," New Research Publications,
Inc., 1984. Cohen is a Mathematician,
Researcher, a Member of the New York Academy
of Sciences, and an Officer of the
Archaeological Institute of America.)
"In a certain sense, the debate transcends
the confrontation between evolutionists and
creationists. We now have a debate within
the scientific community itself; it is a
confrontation between scientific objectivity
and ingrained prejudice - between logic and
emotion - between fact and fiction."
(pp.6,7)
"…In the final analysis, objective
scientific logic has to prevail - no matter
what the final result is - no matter how
many time-honored idols have to be discarded
in the process." (p.8)
"…After all, it is not the duty of science
to defend the theory of evolution, and stick
by it to the bitter end - no matter what
illogical and unsupported conclusions it
offers. … If in the process of impartial
scientific logic, they find that creation by
outside superintelligence is the solution to
our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical
cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a
long time. It is choking us and holding us
back." (pp. 214-215)
"… every single concept advanced by the
theory of evolution (and amended thereafter)
is imaginary as it is not supported by
scientifically established facts of
microbiology, fossils, and mathematical
probability concepts. Darwin was wrong."
(p.209)
"… The theory of evolution may be the worst
mistake made in science." (p. 210)
The sources quoted above are those of
serious scholars and scientists. Most
were or are about doing original research.
Linda’s James Trefil, on the other
hand, is more about teaching classes
such as:
UNIV 301: Great
Ideas in Science
A non-technical introduction to the ideas
that have shaped the growth of science. The
idea behind each major advance is treated in
its historical context, with special
attention to its importance in mankind's
understanding of the nature of the
universe.
HYS 123: Inside
the Quantum World.
Introductory course describing quantum
theory intended for majors and nonmajors.
(Taken from the
Fall 2006 GMU Catalog.)
It is a simple fact, Trefil doesn’t do
original research—he’s an “educator,” a
member of that educational establishment
Linda is so loathe to have me mention. He
teaches introductory courses, and
continues to measure his academic worth by
the foot. Remember, in his own published
bio it is stated that the “Total volume
of the collection [of Trefil’s writings] is
31.7 cubic feet (47.5 linear feet).”
Behind me I have the total published works
of Stephen W. Hawking. It doesn’t even take
up a whole shelf on my little bookcase.
Does that make Trefil the greater scholar?
On that same shelf I have a copy of
Einstein’s monograph on Relativity. It is
so small I can barely find it sometimes. Am
I to suppose Trefil, by virtue of his
prodigiously weighty publishing
proclivities, would rank much higher on the
scale of intellect than would Einstein?
…apparently so in Linda’s eyes. In my
opinion Trefil’s name would be more
descriptive were he to pronounce it
“Trifle.”
It is also a simple fact that in my
Review of Descent, I do not take
Darwin to task for his theory of evolution,
only for his lack of scientific discipline
and his egregious racism. Therefore, when
Linda takes me to task for my aversion to
the theory of evolution, she is missing the
point; she is making the same mistake as did
Becky before her. That is to say,
because Linda lacks the acumen to attack me
on point (the racism of Darwin), she
creates a couple “straw dogs,” and then
attacks them. One such straw dog is that of
my advocating “creationism.” No where do I
do that. Linda invents my argument here,
and then attacks it. That results either
from her laziness, or ineptness. The other
straw dog she invents is my anti-evolution
stance with regard to my
Review of Descent . Again, she
invents this argument out of whole cloth.
The two points I make in my Review
are these: In his Descent Darwin
demonstrates that he was an egregious
racist; and, in that same work, Darwin
exhibits poor scientific discipline. I do
not engage him on religious grounds, nor do
I critique his theory of evolution.
The next direction Linda takes is to invoke
Carl Sagan. I would preface her quotes of
Dr. Sagan with virtually the same statement
that I used with regard to James Trefil.
Sagan was a popular writer and TV
personality, not a research
scientist, unless, of course, one views as
“original research” Sagan’s search for
extraterrestrial life; for, after all, that
was his biggest claim to fame—his search for
little blue space men. He became a laughing
stock for his frequent use of the term
“bee’yahns and bee’yahns and bee’yahns and
bee’yahns of years” (It was Comedian
Johnny Carson who helped make Sagan famous
by poking fun at him.)
This is what was written of Sagan in his
published
bio: “Sagan is
best known…for his research on the
possibilities of
extraterrestrial life, [Sagan] was a
proponent of the search for extraterrestrial
life. He urged the scientific community to
listen with
radio telescopes for signals from
intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms.”
It
was because of his notoriety and popularity
that NASA used him to popularize the space
program. NASA knew Sagan could not resist
this opportunity to search for his little
blue men in space, so they co-opted his
public persona to put a face on the
fledgling program.
…And,
of course, it was Carl Sagan that predicted
the end of the world should Saddam Hussein
set fire to the oil fields in Kuwait (Sagan
famously predicted on
ABC's
Nightline in 1991 that smoky
oil fires in Kuwait (threatened by
Saddam Hussein during the first
Gulf War) would cause a worldwide
ecological disaster of black clouds
resulting in
global cooling, and the destruction of
the world as we know it) …And, as most of
us know, Saddam Hussein did set fire the oil
fields in Kuwait, and the world did not end.
So, here we have it. Linda’s first
“expert,” “Trifle,” is a science
“popularizer” from the educational
establishment who teaches introductory
courses and measures his accomplishments by
the foot, and her second is an
“extraterrestrial investigator” who was
preoccupied with chasing after imaginary
little blue men, and predicting global
destruction in another ice age.
Fine job, Linda—you’ve convinced me (NOT!).
I’m a little surprised you didn’t quote
Jerry Seinfeld as well. Had you, I would at
least have got a good laugh, instead of a
pathetic snicker. Anyway, this is what
Linda wants to prove by quoting Carl Sagan
Linda Writes:
Here are some interesting quotes from Dr.
Carl Sagan’s book “Shadows of Forgotten
Ancestors: “Natural selection has been
misused by capitalists and communists,
whites and blacks, Nazis and many others to
grind this or that self-serving ideological
axe. ,,,Much of the recent controversy over
the application of Darwinian ideas to human
behavior has been motivated by the fear of
such misuse by racists, sexists, and other
bigots –as indeed happened with ghoulish and
tragic consequences in World War II.
However, the cure for a misuse of science is
not censorship, but clearer explanation,
more vigorous debate, and making science
accessible to everyone.”
Goodschools Response:
While I admit that I find it hard to read
Sagan without thinking about his foolish
mistakes, and his preoccupation with the
search for his little blue men, I do wish to
comment on the above quote. Sagan is right
that it was the result of the works of
Darwin that millions of Jews died under
Hitler’s Germany. This fact is documented
in “From Darwin to Hitler” (by Richard
Weikart, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). But I
do not agree with Sagan that this resulted
in a “misuse” of Darwin’s works. I think it
was a direct result of his racist
intentions. Again, I demonstrate this
beyond question in my
Review of Descent.
Linda Writes:
I am not interested in reading your entire
articles and commenting on them. I’ve read
sections of your website. I do not care for
your style of writing, or your occasional
arrogant attitude. Taking into consideration
the quotes I’ve included in this letter, I
believe you are a religious fundamentalist.
Therefore, I cannot trust your so-called
‘facts’ because your religious standpoint
diminishes the credibility of your
pseudo-argument. Christians are very
selective with their beliefs. You don’t
consider Darwin worthy of your support
because you are confusing him with bigots
who’ve misused his work. That crap sounds
good to you because you want to discredit
Darwin’s achievements even if that means
disregarding other vital information. The
hard science clashes with your biblical
views. Your desire and actions to remove the
teaching of evolution from public schools is
a form of book burning.
Goodschools Response:
Again, Linda is totally wrong. First of
all, she admits that she is not interested
in reading my
Review of Descent. How in the
world can she critique me without reading
me? I think that falls under the category
of “engaging mouth before mind.” At any
rate, that is a sad commentary on how
closed-minded people “think.” She may be
correct in her assertion that I sometimes
exhibit arrogance. I’ve heard that one
before, so I suspect there might be some
truth to it. But it is really difficult not
to be arrogant given my competition.
Linda concludes that I am a “religious
fundamentalist.” She does so wrongly, and
without evidence. Again, she creates a
straw dog to attack. She refuses to read my
Review of Descent, yet she is
quick to tag me as a religious
fundamentalist. I guess it (wallowing in
ignorance and error ) makes life easier for
her and those that think like her.
I
have no idea where she comes up with
“…you [Goodschools] want[s] to discredit
Darwin’s achievements even if that means
disregarding other vital information. The
hard science clashes with your biblical
views. Your desire and actions to remove the
teaching of evolution from public schools is
a form of book burning.”
Linda makes three major straw dog mistakes here. First of all, she
accuses me of wanting to disregard “other
vital information.” I am not sure what that
means. All I am after is for Darwin to be
painted with the proper brush—that of the
raging racist. Of this he is deserving.
Second, she kicks around the religious straw
dog again: “The hard science clashes with
your biblical views.” Neither my sources
nor my writings cite anything religious or
biblical. Again Linda creates her argument
out of whole cloth. She admits she has not
read my
Review of Descent, yet she is
quick to accuse me of lies. Her third
mistake relates to my desire for “book
burning.” The only suggestion in this
direction is from Linda herself, as she
wishes to burn the Bible. Consider the
following cartoons she sent Goodschools to
bolster her argument:
Rather than approaching Descent on
its own merits, which is what I do in my
Review, Linda tags me with this unfair
label, and then attacks that label. Again,
out of weakness she creates the whipping-boy
straw dog—religious fundamentalism. All
this, while she refuses to read my
Review. …And she accuses
me of
arrogance!
Goodschools then wrote to Linda: I
appreciate your time and effort on behalf of
Darwin--it helps me better understand how
good people (and I do think you are a good
person) can support the work of one I
consider not worthy of support.
Now that you have
invested so much of your time and energy in
this effort, I am hesitant to ask you to
spend more, but I will. Would you read two
articles from my site, and comment on them
(as they relate to your most recent email)?
They are
Charles Darwin--the Munificent Zookeeper (http://www.goodschools.com/April19.htm)
Darwin's Theory of
Evolution (http://www.goodschools.com/darwin.htm.
Feel free to challenge (objectively) any
point I make.
A good book that you might like to consider
over the summer is Richard Weikart's "From
Darwin to Hitler" (Palgrave Macmillan,
2004). That might give you a
different perspective of Darwin's views, and
the uses to which they have been applied.
Mike
Linda Writes:
Mike,
as you probably know, neither of us are
going to change each other's opinions.
But if you're as interested as i am to learn
from the mind of opposing views, I'll share
more with you. I hope you don't take
any of this personally.
Goodschools Response:
That is an
untrue statement. I love it when
someone proves me wrong. That helps me
grow. If I am in error, and am
corrected, I am quick to admit it and
correct the error. I have already done
that on this site. ...And, I never
take philosophical debate personally.
Linda Writes:
[Linda goes back to Trefil for another
quote]
Considering
what Professor Trefil said as further
reflection of my thinking, here is item #172
from 1001 Things Everyone Should now About
Science. "In 1859 Darwin published On
the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, perhaps one of the most
influential books ever written.
although strongly opposed by theologians at
the time, Darwin's view of life has since
become accepted by all but a fringe element
among religious thinkers. There is so
much evidence to support it that scientists
scarcely bother to think about its basic
validity any more, but concentrate on
working out the fine points of the theory."
Goodschools Response:
Again, I
cannot take seriously anyone who measures
his worth by the space he takes up on a
bookshelf.
Linda Writes:
It ridiculous to assume that if Darwin were
a hateful racist it would have anything to
do with his observations of natural
selection. I don't view his 19th
century terminology to be a problem at all
with his work or thinking concerning
evolution and natural selection.
You've made a weak attempt to discredit
Evolution. "Negroes" is what 'dark
skinned people' were called back then.
There are tribes living today that have
'savage' eels of civilization. This
stuff is petty and totally neglecting to
recognize what Darwin was really writing
about.
Goodschools Response:
Obviously
Linda is overwhelmed by the obvious.
The statement to which Linda is referring is
this:
Darwin
exhibited a strong pre-disposition
against dark-skinned people, whom he
referred to as "savages." To Darwin,
the term "savage" represented an animal,
not a real human being--an animal which
had a brain smaller than the "civilized"
man [read: "white man"]; was less
athletic; was weaker; was dumber;
cheated more; was not noble; was prone
to alcoholism; was not capable of being
a genius; smelled badly; represented a
different sub-species than "civilized"
man, if not a totally different species
altogether; had much in common with
idiots; and had smaller "brain cases"
than did "civilized man." …And, of
course, Darwin's favorite "savage"
whipping boys were those whom he called
"Negroes."
The obvious
point I was making with this quote was that
Darwin had entered into the arena with a
strong predisposition against dark-skinned
people, whom he happened to refer to as
"Negroes." I understand that the term
"Negro" has a connotation
today that was
absent in the 19th century. The
problem I have is with Darwin's totally
unscientific "observations." If Linda
would only read my
Review of Descent, and Descent,
she would see that Darwin was a bumbling,
but egregious, racist.
Linda Writes:
Regardless of anything concerning Darwin, I
wonder what you might have to say about the
fossil record? Why is it the further
back in time you look, simpler forms of life
are found?
Goodschools Response:
Linda
should know that I do not write about the
fossil records. I am no more qualified
to do so than was Darwin. But I
would ask this question, upon which fossil
record did Darwin base his conclusions?
Conclusions such as:
-
Negroes
were not real humans.
-
Negroes
could not be as athletic as the white
man.
-
Negroes
were weaker than the white man.
-
Negroes
were dumber than the white man.
-
Negroes
cheated more than the white man.
-
Negroes
could not be noble.
-
Negroes
were not capable of genius (nor were
women, according to Darwin).
-
Negroes
were prone to alcoholism.
-
Negroes
smelled badly.
-
Negroes
had more in common with idiots than they
did with the white man (a Darwinian
"fact" based largely on the relative
size of brain cases).
I would ask
Linda, because we know that all of the above
Darwinian "facts," are not based upon any
type of sound empirical scientific evidence,
from where do they come? I suggest they come
from Darwin's racist predisposition.
Linda must be convinced, if she doesn't
already know, that racism does
matter, especially when it trumps sound
scientific observation.
Linda Writes:
[Linda again goes back to Trefil]
#173
There is a difference between the fact of
evolution and the theory of evolution.
You sometimes hear people comment that
evolution is "just a theory." This
statement is very misleading, because
evolution is a fact as well as a theory.
You can understand what I mean by thinking
about gravity. There are theories of
gravity, including those of Newton and
Einstein. These theories can be right
or wrong, complete or incomplete. But
there is also the fact of gravity--when you
drop something it falls. This fact
remains whether the theories are right or
not.
Goodschools Response:
To that I
would ask: "Upon what were the ten
Darwinian conclusions regarding Negroes
(listed above) based--fact, theory, or
predisposition? ...And, is "Triffle"
trying to suggest that because an apple
falls down instead of up, that somehow that
makes Darwin a scientist?
Linda Writes:
…bet you believe in unicorns too.
Goodschools Response:
I’ll bet she lost a whole night’s sleep
thinking that one up.
Linda Writes:
What’s the alternative? Mythological
Creationism??
Goodschools Response:
This is where Linda starts to get interesting. The
truth comes out at last. Here she states
her true fear: “What is the alternative?”
Like so many “Darweenies,” Linda’s
adherence to Darwin has less to do with love
for Darwin, than with the fear of his
replacement. To that I say: “It is not my
job to pick the replacement, only to point
out the inadequacies; which in Darwin’s
case, is his fundamental racism and aversion
to scientific discipline.” I leave picking
replacements to those smarter and more
qualified than myself. I would add,
however, I do not consider Sagan and
“Trifle” to be on the short list.
Linda Writes:
I’ve shared some of our email exchange with
some of my friends. Here are a few of their
comments:
“It's almost like communicating with an
alien: even if you use the same words, the
meanings are totally different. "Facts",
"Theory", "Proof", "Truth", these words are
essential to discussions about Darwin,
Evolution, Science, or anything logical or
scientific at all. But Anti-Darwin guy
[Goodschools], and people like him, refuse
to use the correct meaning of those and
other important words, so they render the
conversation meaningless, or at least
impossible to pursue, using
logic at least. They degenerate it out of
logic into their preferred mode of emotional
irrationality and gut instinct, the only
place where their perverted definitions of
Facts and Truth can hold up: the Land of the
Unicorns. He probably has a unicorn poster
and rainbow stripes on his wall, next to a
picture
of Jesus having dinner with Santa and the
Easter Bunny.
Daaahhhhh!
Goodschools Response:
To this I would say: As I look around my
office I am a little surprised to notice
that I do not have a single picture of
anyone or anything—only books and
computers. I am sure the Easter Bunny
finds that troublesome. I do find it
fascinating how Darweenies always
turn a discussion about Darwin to personal
attack and innuendo. Why is it the
Darweenies always seem to go there?
Could it be their arguments are weak? …And
that they are afraid of truth? Darn, there
I go being arrogant again.
Linda Writes:
[Here are some more of Linda’s charming
friends chiming in.]
--No "original material"? [Goodschools had
asked Linda to go back to source material,
not just quote from the educational
establishment] What, like the Bible? What
the hell does that mean? F***ing idiot. It's
a noble thing you're trying to do Linda, but
I'm afraid it's a waste of time. You're up
against a couple millennia of
dogma, logic and science are simply not
recognized. At least you got some grins out
of it. I've enjoyed hearing about your
correspondence with this clown.
--The bible is an under qualified source.
See if he believes that the bible is true
and your intelligent scientific references
are not. This guy is beneath you. A
crackpot.
--Hey Linda, look what I found on this
moron’s site. Of all places to make a typo!
Ha-ha! This really says it all. . . “I say
up with education; up with truth; up with
sound scholarship; but down with racism, and
definitely down with Darwin. It is time for
a change.” “I say up with education”, Mr.
Obnoxious surely does if it fits in within
his superstition, and he doesn’t even follow
one of his holy commandments ‘Thou shall not
lie’. He’s burning in hell for sure! …These
neo-nazi religious freaks are rapidly diving
head-on into a new dark age. I’d think it’s
sad if I could stop laughing. You kicked
his ass with those Sagan quotes and he knows
it. He put his religious blinders on again
so he can feel secure in his fears. Big
Baby.
Goodschools Response:
I
felt obligated to include the preceding
quotes from Linda’s friends. She
specifically demanded me
to do so. I do apologize for the profanity. It
is fascinating to me that Linda, who seems
like a fairly bright person, would choose to
send me quotes from these people. Not one
of them had anything of substance to add.
Not one of them challenged a single word of
my
Review. No doubt the Darweenies
will applaud the ad hominine chat-room
attack style, simply because they know no
other.
Linda then respondd to some of my questions
posed in an earlier email. I have grouped
her responses to specific questions. To be
fair to her, I list them all with no
interruptions. I do, however, address her
comments below, immediately following what
she wrote.
Linda Writes:
Question to Linda: “Where
on my website did you get the idea that I
opposed Darwin
for his "Dangerous Idea?"
Linda’s response: “Everywhere on your
website.”
Question to Linda:
”I oppose his work for religious reasons?”
Linda’s response: “I have
never heard of anyone opposed to Evolution
that was not a religious person. If you did
not believe in Jesus you would tell me
freely. People who fear going to hell don’t
realize how that alters their perception of
reality.”
Question to Linda: “Is
there something
about facts that you find offensive?”
Linda’s response: “Your so-called facts are
bias, the source is offensive. When I first
discovered your website I realized you had
religious reasons for creating it.”
Question to Linda:
“If you wish to refute me, why not do so
with facts, not name calling and
non-relevant arguments?”
Linda’s response: “I am. Your argument
isn’t relevant. You refuse to acknowledge
points I have made, constantly ignore my
questions, or reveal what your hidden
alternative to Evolution may be. Once
again, you missed the point. I do not
consider your garbage facts! The FACT is
your argument does not matter at all! It’s
ridiculous and completely meaningless.
Whether or not Darwin was racist has
absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. You
failed before you started.”
Goodschools Response:
Linda’s first response was too vague to be
taken seriously. I had asked her what made
her think I opposed Darwin because of his
“Dangerous Idea.” The fact is I do not
oppose Darwin because of his ideas, I oppose
him because he was a dangerous racist.
That, and his mindless aversion to
scientific discipline, are my biggest
problems with him. Even Linda’s main man,
Carl Sagan, believes Darwin was a raging
racist. It is just that Linda, and those
like her, are willing to accept his racism
without batting an eye. They are not
concerned that 6 million Jews were murdered
in Europe as a result of Darwin’s racism, or
that Black Americans are discriminated
against every day of the week because of
Darwin. To Linda and her ilk, that is just
fine.
Next I asked Linda what gave her to think
that I could oppose Darwin’s racism for
reasons outside religion. She stated that
she had never met a man who opposed Darwin
for reasons other than religion. That is
troubling to me. Not only do I not oppose
Darwin on religious grounds, I have never
written anything that would give Linda cause
to think so. She makes up her opposition
out of her own hate and bigotry, not from
anything Goodschools has advocated. Do I
have to be behind a pulpit to decry the
hateful rhetoric contained in Descent?
Is it impossible, or unacceptable, for
a non-religious person to speak out against
racism and hate? I guess in Linda’s twisted
world, it is.
I
admit that I was a bit arrogant when I
challenged Linda to stick to the facts. I
asked her if there was something she found
offensive about facts. Linda did not answer
this question. Instead, she said my source
material was offensive. I would have to
agree with her on that--my only source
material for my
Review was Darwin’s Descent. I,
too, find Descent offensive. In
fact, that offensive work was the main
reason I have pursued this adventure.
Darwin’s Descent has been responsible
for the murder of millions, and the
subjugation of hundreds of millions. It is
time for this travesty to end. Linda, and
her legions of Darweenies, must be
“outed,” and embarrassed for what they are.
They are the worst kind of racists. They
hide behind the work of others. They are
cowards. They would be the last people on
earth to admit their racism, yet they
espouse, hell, they admire,
the racism of others.
It was at this point that the most telling
of Linda’s comments came out. She demands
that I expose my “hidden agenda,” and admit
to what Darwin’s replacement would be.
That, my friends, is the whole matter in the
proverbial nutshell. The Darweenies
are afraid of what the alternative might be,
should Darwin be seen without clothes.
Well, as I have written dozens of times, it
is not my job to provide an alternative;
only to point out the failures in the
current system. Linda and her Darweenies
are so scared to look at the truth, that
they continue to prop up this tired, ugly,
racist. We cannot move on until we are
willing to look at Darwin without blinders.
Rather than revere this racist in our
schools, this is what the textbooks should
publish under his name:
Charles
Robert Darwin
was born on February 12, 1809 in Shrewsbury,
England. He was the fifth child and second
son of Robert Waring
Darwin and Susannah Wedgwood. Darwin was the
British naturalist who became famous for his
theories of evolution and natural selection.
Like several scientists before him, Darwin
believed all the life on earth evolved
(developed gradually) over millions of years
from a few common ancestors. From 1831 to 1836 Darwin
served as naturalist aboard the H.M.S.
Beagle on a
British science expedition around the world.
In South America Darwin found fossils of
extinct animals that were similar to modern
species. On the Galapagos Islands in the
Pacific Ocean he noticed many variations
among plants and animals of the same general
type as those in South America. The
expedition visited places around the world,
and Darwin studied plants and animals
everywhere he went, collecting specimens for further
study.
(This was quoted verbatim (but eliminating
links) from the first part of the brief
biography of Charles Darwin published on the
following web site:
http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html).
Unfortunately Darwin exhibited a strong
pre-disposition against dark-skinned people,
whom he referred to as "savages." To
Darwin, the term “savage” represented an
animal, not a real human being--an animal
which had a brain smaller than the
“civilized” man [read: "white man"]; was
less athletic; was weaker; was dumber;
cheated more; was not noble; was prone to
alcoholism; was not capable of being a
genius; smelled badly; represented a
different sub-species than “civilized” man,
if not a totally different species
altogether; had much in common with idiots;
and had smaller “brain cases” than did
“civilized man.” …And, of course, Darwin’s
favorite “savage” whipping boys were those
whom he called “Negroes.”
Darwin
should not be regarded as a scientist. His
methodology was flawed to its core. He was
an egregious racist. Rather than the
forerunner of modern biology, he was more
the forerunner of
Hitler's Nazi Germany and modern racism.
Linda is very wrong when she suggests I
would burn books, or engage in censorship.
That would be the last thing I would do. I
want only that truth be told, and that
Darwin be laid to rest with the proper
epithet. He was a racist, and his writings
must be understood in that light. He has
the blood of 6 million Jews on his hands,
and the cultural imprisonment of hundreds of
millions of people of African heritage. He
must be understood in that light.
…And, Linda, it is
significant that the progenitor of your
system of biology was a raging racist, and
was a man who cared nothing about scientific
discipline. While I am troubled that Thomas
Jefferson, and many of our founding fathers,
owned slaves, I am more concerned with what
is happening today. Our politics regarding
slavery changed in the 19th
century. A lot of blood was spilled to
accomplish that. …I am pleased that it did
change. In fact, I believe it was
visionaries such as Jefferson and Lincoln
that brought that emancipation about.
Now, it is time for educators to become
visionaries instead of “reguritators.” It
is time for the educational establishment to
cleanse itself. It is time to out all the
Darweenies; to show them for who
they are—racists and stuck-in-the-mud
flat-earth slugs.
I
would love to be nicer to people like
Linda. I think she is a well-meaning
lady. But she and her ilk continue to
support the man who inspired Hitler, and who
continues to hold a place of esteem in the
curriculum of today. A curriculum that
continues to debase those of African
descent. This has to end.
I
just wish there was someone out there, with
a modicum of honesty and analytical ability, who would
read my
review of Descent, and critically
analyze it (It is available as a
PDF). If I have made mistakes, I
would like to know. Obviously, Linda and her
chat-room buddies are not up to the task.
(Update:
Upon publication of her letters, with my
comments, Linda responded:
"You [Goodschools]
are truly demented and an horribly evil
person.")
Would you like to see related letters and my comments?
--Mike Carrier (MA, NYU--Graduate School of
Arts and Science)
Below is the entire text of Linda’s emails:
Hello,
I just discovered your website last night. I
am curious. Why have you spent time to make
this website? Are you a Creationist?
Linda
Mike,
I’m glad you wrote me back.
I asked those two questions because I am curious
to know where you’re coming from. Will you
answer me now?
Linda
Mike,
You’re making too big of deal out of this. It is
starting to look like you are hiding from
something. I have no intentions of getting
drawn into a debate with you. I simply want
to know if you consider yourself a Christian
and believe in Creationism. Is Jesus your
savior or not? Yes or No?
Mike,
Wait a minute. You want to become
buddies? Then I can ask you anything?
?,
Linda
PS: Maybe for some reason you would like to
see my pic?
Mike,
I happened to find your website after
searching for something like ‘Darwin in
schools’ using Google. I was interested to
learn more about the status of the creation
vs. evolution conflict going on in our
schools. I think the Christian Right are
reacting to Evolution like they did to
Galileo.
Linda
1001 Things Everyone Should Know About
Science, by James Trefil
#173 There is a difference between the fact
of evolution and the theory of evolution.
You sometimes hear people comment that
evolution is “just a theory.” This
statement is very misleading, because
evolution is a fact as well as a theory.
You can understand what I mean by thinking
about gravity. There are theories of
gravity, including those of Newton and
Einstein. These theories can be right or
wrong, complete or incomplete. But there is
also the fact of gravity-when you drop
something it falls. This fact remains
whether the theories are right or not.
In just the same way, the record of the
development of life from humble beginnings
to the present complex biosphere is a fact
that can be read in the fossil record.
Similarly, the ability of living things to
mutate in response to environmental change
can be seen in laboratories and in nature.
Whether any of the current theories of
evolution can or cannot explain this record
doesn’t change the existence of the fact of
evolution.
This is an important distinction, because one of the
favorite techniques of creationists is to
argue that since scientists are in
disagreement about this or that point of
evolutionary theory, the fact of evolution
must be thrown out and their version of
creation accepted. This is roughly
equivalent to overhearing two people arguing
about whether an office is on the 52nd
or 53rd floor of the Empire State
Building and concluding the building must be
one story high
Mike,
As you probably know, neither of us are
going to change each other’s opinions. But
if you’re as interested as I am to learn
from the mind of opposing views, I’ll share
more with you. I hope you don’t take any of
this personally.
Before I continue I would like to point out
something that makes it difficult for a
‘fair’ debate. In a previous letter you
wrote, “He disdained scientific discipline.
I demonstrate those facts beyond question.”
Beyond question? No scientist or
investigator of the truth would think that
way. This is evidence that you are not
completely without bias and it reveals you
have a hidden agenda. It is also another
example of the misleading sensationalism you
use throughout your website.
Considering what Professor Trefil said as
further reflection of my thinking, here is
item #172 from 1001 Things Everyone Should
Know About Science. “In 1859, Darwin
published On the Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, perhaps one of the
most influential books ever written.
Although strongly opposed by theologians at
the time, Darwin’s view of life has since
become accepted by all but a fringe element
among religious thinkers. There is so much
evidence to support it that scientists
scarcely bother to think about its basic
validity any more, but concentrate on
working out the fine points of the theory.”
It is ridiculous to assume that if Darwin
were a hateful racist it would have anything
to do with his observations of natural
selection. I don’t view his 19th
century terminology to be a problem at all
with his work or thinking concerning
evolution and natural selection. You’ve
made a weak attempt to discredit Evolution.
“Negroes” is what ‘dark skinned people’ were
called back then. There are tribes living
today that have ‘savage’ levels of
civilization. This stuff is petty and
totally neglecting to recognize what Darwin
was really writing about.
Regardless of anything concerning Darwin, I
wonder what you might have to say about the
fossil record? Why is it the further back
in time you look, simpler forms of life are
found?
Thank you for your time,
Mike,
Charles Darwin did not invent evolution. The
idea that creatures evolved had first come
from the ancient Greeks. It was explored
systematically for the first time in the
early 1800’s. The French naturalist Jean
Baptiste Pierre Antoine deMonet published a
paper purposing that all life forms
originated from a single simple organism.
Here are some interesting quotes from Dr. Carl Sagan’s book
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors;
“Here it is again: the fear that knowledge of the true nature
of our ancestors might unravel the social
fabric”.
“Many who criticized him (Darwin) did not understand his
argument or the cumulative power of the data
he invoked in its support”.
“Evolution in no way implies atheism, although it is
consistent with atheism. But evolution is
clearly inconsistent with the literal truth
of certain books. If we believe the Bible
was written by people, and not dictated
word-for-word to a flawless stenographer by
the Creator of the Universe, or if we
believe God might on occasion resort to
metaphor for clarity, then evolution should
pose no theological problem. But whether it
poses a problem or not, the evidence for
evolution –that it has happened, apart form
the debate on whether uniformitarian natural
selection fully explains how it happened –is
overwhelming”.
“Darwin’s transcendently democratic insight that all humans
are descended from the same non-human
ancestors, that we are all members of one
family, is inevitably distorted when viewed
with the impaired vision of a civilization
permeated by racism”.
“Natural selection has been misused by capitalists and
communists, whites and blacks, Nazis and
many others to grind this or that
self-serving ideological axe”.
“Much of the recent controversy over the application of
Darwinian ideas to human behavior has been
motivated by the fear of such misuse by
racists, sexists, and other bigots –as
indeed happened with ghoulish and tragic
consequences in World War II. However, the
cure for a misuse of science is not
censorship, but clearer explanation, more
vigorous debate, and making science
accessible to everyone”.
Perhaps you remember Trefil’s quote; “Although
strongly opposed by theologians at the time,
Darwin's view of life has since become
accepted by all but a fringe element among
religious thinkers”.
I found this at PBS.org
“For many people of various faiths, support
for the scientific theory of evolution has
not supplanted their religious belief. And
throughout the modern Judeo-Christian
tradition, leaders have asserted that
evolutionary science offers a valid
perspective on the natural world. They say
that evolution is consistent with religious
doctrine and complements, rather than
conflicts with, religion.
There are, however, some Christians -- in
particular, fundamentalists and some
evangelicals -- who perceive a conflict
between evolution and their literal
interpretation of the Bible.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_02.html
I am not interested in reading your
entire articles and commenting on them.
I’ve read sections of your website. I do not
care for your style of writing, or your
occasional arrogant attitude. Taking into
consideration the quotes I’ve included in
this letter, I believe you are a religious
fundamentalist. Therefore, I cannot trust
your so-called ‘facts’ because your
religious standpoint diminishes the
credibility of your pseudo-argument.
Christians are very selective with their
beliefs. You don’t
consider Darwin worthy of your support
because you are confusing him with bigots
who’ve misused his work. That crap sounds
good to you because you want to
discredit Darwin’s achievements even if that
means disregarding other vital information.
The hard science clashes with your biblical
views. Your desire and actions to remove the
teaching of evolution from public schools is
a form of book burning.
Here are some books you should
read if you are truly interesting in having
a more complete and objective understanding
of Evolution and Science.
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search For
Who We Are
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345384725/104-7256302-9321509?v=glance&n=283155
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle
in the Dark
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/qid=1152371856/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-7256302-9321509?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
I didn’t read this one, though it does look
interesting,
