Good Schools, Descent and Origin

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

(Note: When Darwin refers to "races" here, there can be no doubt that what was intended was a meaning quite similar to the current meaning of the term. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, historically the term at that time meant: "A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common decent or origin." It is also clear, when taken in the context of his entire work, Darwin intended the term rendered in the English as "race" to mean basically the same thing as it means in current usage. You must remember, that while Origin did not specifically include a direct treatment of Darwin's notion of mankind's history, he fully intended us to make that connection. In fact, Darwin himself inextricably connected mankind's descent to his ground-laying work in Origin. He writes that through his Origin "[Much] light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" (Origin p. 407). Darwin himself further tied the knot with his words in his second edition of Descent: "...this [referring to the quote from Origin] implies that man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on the earth" ("The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin," Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, p. 1). There is no doubt that Darwin viewed his Origin as a two-part series, as Origin/Descent. ...And that once he completed his total task, he intended that Origin should never be read without Descent. This effort was actually referred to as "one long argument" by Ernst Mayr in his so-titled book, "One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought" (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991). In Origin Darwin was merely laying the groundwork for Descent. He knew that politically, that was the only way he could accomplish his task. Dr. H. James Brix writes in his Introduction of a recent publication of Descent that "...Darwin had not included a treatment of the birth and history of humankind in Origin, because he feared adding to the sharp ridicule that would surely surround his scientific theory..." ("The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin," Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, p. xvii.). I am convinced that it is safe to say that the only right way to regard Origin is as Origin/Descent. Only then can Darwin be fully (read "rightly") understood. To regard Descent merely as afterthought, or as a separate collection of subsequent thoughts, would be to miss the whole point Darwin was trying to make. It is totally obvious in the second part of his work that the so-called "savage races" were, in his racist mind, destined for annihilation, for he writes in Descent that: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." ("The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin," Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, pp.162,163.).

Back to Ron Lalonde

--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.