My response:

I am very pleased with the way Patrick starts out.   

1. He does not question my ancestry, nor does he use the word "ilk."  Those are good signs.
2. He asks me what I "think" rather than what I "feel."  ...Another good sign.
3. He refers to Darwin's theory of evolution as a "theory" rather than a "fact."  
4. He does not start out asking me "with what would you replace Darwin in schools?"

Those four things alone lead me to believe that Patrick is in the top 10% of those reading and responding to this web page; and therefore, his letter is worthy of publication and response.

Patrick begins:  "Do you really think that it is wise to dismiss an entire theory of science just because Darwin happened to be a so-called racist?" 

I do not wish to seem too picky here, but the construction of this question proscribes its being answered as written.   I will rephrase the question to reflect what I think Patrick is asking:  

"Do you really think that it is wise to dismiss Darwin's scientific theories, as espoused in "The Origin of Species" and the "The Descent of Man," just because Darwin happened to be a so-called racist?" 

When asked in this fashion, I would have to say "No, I do not think it wise to dismiss Darwin's theories simply on the basis of his being racist, provided he does not allow his racism to get in the way of his 'science'."   

Patrick, you didn't think it would be that easy to defeat me, did you?   Well, all is not as it seems ... but I'll bet you knew that.  Several things are assumed in your question, and just as many are assumed in my answer.   So, while we may seem to agree on the surface, I doubt that our agreement here is substantial by any standard of measurement.

First of all, I do not think it wise to dismiss any scientific theory on the basis of its progenitor's unrelated views.   I care not what language truth is written in; nor do I care about the political, religious or sexual orientation of the writer.  Truth is truth, and must be viewed on its own merits.   With regard to Darwin's theories, I would draw attention to the two operative concepts (italicized) in the first sentence of this paragraph:  scientific and unrelated views.   

Scientific aspects of Darwin's theories:  Darwin's theory of evolution, particularly that part outlining his notion of natural selection, is no longer viewed as scientifically valid outside our schools of education.   Real scientists, those who actually do research, scholars such as Dr. Stuart A. Kauffman, drove the final nails in Darwin's coffin with words such as these:  "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, powerful as it is, has fractures as its foundations" (p.643, The Origins of Order, New York:  Oxford University Press, 1993).  Other real scientists concur with Dr. Kauffman.   (Click here to check out what some of the other real scientists are saying, and have been saying for a long time.  Click here or here to read about some of those pseudo scientists who currently write in support of Darwin.)   

The truth is that the only safe harbor for the flat-earth Darwinists is in education.   It is only there, in the regurgitational apparatus yet flourishing in many of our schools of education, that Darwin receives his last vestige of respectability -- only there.  ...Certainly not in our premier institutions of research.

This, Patrick, is what I think:  I think that Darwin's teachings should be relegated to the trash heap of history, along with all other bad science.  That is to say, "I really  think that it is wise to dismiss Darwin's scientific theories, as espoused in "The Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man," just because Darwin's scientific theories represent bad science."   In a logical, honest world, that ought to be enough. 

Nature of Darwin's so-called unrelated views:  I would not dismiss any scientific theory simply because the one who developed that theory had other, unrelated views that differed from mine.  As far as I am concerned a scientist's personal life or views cannot be permitted to provide anything more than a backdrop for a biographical analysis.  Truth is truth regardless of who discovers it; and proofs are proofs, regardless of who develops them.   

However, when a so-called scientist develops a theory based upon a flawed ideology or mindset, then I have a problem.  Darwin did exactly that.  Darwin was first a raging racist, then an aspiring scientist.  There is no doubt that he allowed his racism to color his studies, and the subsequent development of his theories.   

This is easily demonstrated by even a cursory examination of the terms he used to designate his groups of peoples.  When referring to the white man, he uses the scientific term:  Caucasian.  However, when referring to the African Negro or Australian, he frequently uses the pejorative vernacular:  "Savages."   That is racism, pure and simple.  It was this raging racist mindset that led Darwin to write these inflammatory racist words:    "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."  (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York:  A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178).

The term  "anthropomorphous ape," as used here by Darwin, is quite telling.  Quoting from the Oxford English Dictionary, "anthropomorphous" meant at the time of Darwin:  the act of something non-human, taking on the characteristics "of human form, having the form of a man."  The example given from literature by Oxford English Dictionary is of an "anthropomorphic plant," which is a plant described in various writings as having certain human-like characteristics.  Darwin's use of that term here clearly demonstrates that he viewed the immediate ancestors of black peoples as something less than real humans; as apes having some of the characteristics of humans.  This is a blatantly racist notion. 

So, Patrick, I would say this in conclusion on this point:   Real scientists (those who do original scientific work in our first-line institutions of research),  tell us that Darwin  represents bad science.   Furthermore, we can see that Darwin's own writings leave no doubt that he based his bad science on his bad attitude about black peoples.  Why in the world, I ask you,  would you seek to follow after this raging racist loser?   ...Unless, of course, you afraid of the truth.

Patrick continues with these words:

In regards to the term "race," I do not think Darwin would have used
such a term had he known something about genetics and gene-pools.  Darwin
never read Mendel and I think that if he had he may not have used the term
"race."  Had Darwin used the term gene-pool or genetic population I suppose
he would have been more politically correct; however, he knew nothing of
genetics.  So what your saying is to dismiss an entire theory because of the
political incorrectness regarding a word that was used at a particular time
to represent what we now call a gene population or gene-pool.  I'm sure you
will agree that individuals of different genetic populations will have
different genes.  We are not all genetic clones so it might help if we
categorize similarities and contrasts in differing gene pools.  How are you
supposed to help people with genetic diseases if you cannot categorize them
to particular group to see what they might be susceptible to?  There has to
be some categorizing for the sake of helping people medically.   

My response:

When, in his works, Darwin referred to "races", there can be no doubt that what he 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 that 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 Origin.  He writes that through his Origin "[Much] light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" (Origin p. 407).  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.   In Origin he was merely laying the  groundwork for Descent.  He knew that politically, this was the only way he could accomplish his task.  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.)  

What we are dealing with here, Patrick, is semantics.   There is a huge difference between the word "race" and the word "racist."  Race is a legitimate word, and Darwin had every right to use it.  It was legitimate in the 19th century, and it is legitimate today.   

The term "racism," while etymologically related to "race," is a much newer word, particularly in its current connotation.   "Racism" denotes the mindset of one who views the various races as being of different value.  Usually a racist not only favors one race above another, but in so doing exhibits varying degrees of disdain (or outright hate) for the races that he does not favor.  Webster's 1967 Unabridged defined racism in this manner:  "The assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others" (p. 1870c).  Keep in mind Darwin's subtitle or his first major work:  "The Origin of Species  --  The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."  

Darwin was not a racist because he used the term "race."  Darwin was a racist because he added his own brand of hate to his use of the term.  His raging racism is totally obvious in the second part of his work (Descent) when he states that that the so-called "savage races" were, in his racist mind, destined for annihilation.  

Stated again:  Darwin was not a racist because he used the term "race."  Darwin was a racist because he hated black peoples.  That could not be more clear.

Patrick continues with these words:

I do not think Darwin was trying to promote racism in his theory but
was merely trying to explain nature based on the facts, beliefs, and
terminology of that time.  Furthermore, I think Darwin was trying to show how
organisms struggle with other species and organisms within their own species,
and wanted to relate this to the human species.  Obviously, human beings
struggle for survival (i.e. war) and there are those who are better equipped
than others to survive.  I think that was what Darwin was talking about. 
Does Darwin anywhere in his works mention that people ought to fight with one
another? I don't think so or not to my knowledge.  I think he is just merely
stating that fact that we do fight and some are better equipped for survival
than others in different environments.  If Darwin were promoting fighting
among "races" or gene pools, then I think it would be problematic; however, I
do not think this the case and that you are blowing his use of the word
"race" way out of proportion and context.  I could be wrong, but I would like
know what your thoughts are on my position.  

Thanks,
Patrick     

My response:

Patrick, this is absolutely perfect.  You hit it on the nose.  What you have written sounds very convincing; however, you make one huge mistake.  ...And that one mistake, while not intentional, totally explodes your argument.  ...Want to know what it is?  Towards the middle of this segment of your letter you wrote:  

"I think he [Darwin] is just merely stating that fact that we do fight and some are better equipped for survival than others in different environments."  

The part that mutes your whole argument here is your inclusion of the word "environment."   You see, Darwin based his notion of the inferiority of black peoples (savages, as he refers to them) on their close ancestry to "anthropomorphous apes."   Had Darwin founded the superiority/inferiority of races on environmental conditioning, rather than ancestry, he would have fit right in with his contemporaries.  But he did not.   Darwin was a raging racist -- plain and simple.

I do want to thank you, Patrick, for your thoughtful, however misguided, defense of Darwin.  You sound like an intelligent person.   It is time for you to give it up.   Your outdated beliefs are based more on environment than science.

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

--Mike Carrier (MA, NYU--Graduate School of Arts and Science)