Good Schools, Patrick, 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

"Thoughtful Darwinist" Responds to my Original Comments, and I Comment Again

After reading my comments about his recent letter to Goodschools, Patrick responded as follows (published verbatim). I do comment on this, his most recent letter:

[Goodschools]

That was a great response. I do agree that Darwin's theory is
outdated and so is much of the other science taught in our schools. However,
I think Darwin's science is taught because it is not that difficult to grasp.
I think implementing a new science that incorporates the latest findings and
or speculations in quantum-physics, theoretical philosophy and anthropology
would be difficult for someone without an in depth science background to
understand. There would be quite a gap to fill in a science classroom if
Darwinism were removed.

I am not afraid of the truth. I am afraid that objective-truth is not
something that can be attained. My problem is that everything that I have
learned in my philosophy, anthro, and bio courses suggests that everything is
uncertain and can always be disproved. I don't think that objective-truth
can be reached because all of our means are subjective and relative. So, my
question is how then can objective-truth be reached through subjective means
such as science, religion, and philosophy? Regardless, it is good to
question things. It seems as if some Darwinians are just as dogmatic as some
theologians. I think everyone needs to ease up a bit. Personally, I think
Socrates was right when he said that the greatest wisdom comes from knowing
that you know nothing.

Thanks,
Patrick
P.S. Are you a grad student and is this your thesis that you're working on?

My comments on Patrick's letter:

Patrick writes: "That was a great response. I do agree that Darwin's theory is
outdated and so is much of the other science taught in our schools. However,
I think Darwin's science is taught because it is not that difficult to grasp.
I think implementing a new science that incorporates the latest findings and
or speculations in quantum-physics, theoretical philosophy and anthropology
would be difficult for someone without an in depth science background to
understand. There would be quite a gap to fill in a science classroom if
Darwinism were removed."

My response: I thank Patrick for his kind words, and thoughtful analysis of the problem. If he is correct, if Darwin's teachings persist because they are "not that difficult to grasp," then they should easily be replaced with the truth. Failure to teach the truth due to expedience does not provide much of a foundation upon which to build a science curriculum. We must start with the facts that we know, and not provide room for myths.

Patrick writes: "I am not afraid of the truth. I am afraid that objective-truth is not
something that can be attained. My problem is that everything that I have
learned in my philosophy, anthro, and bio courses suggests that everything is
uncertain and can always be disproved. I don't think that objective-truth
can be reached because all of our means are subjective and relative. So, my
question is how then can objective-truth be reached through subjective means
such as science, religion, and philosophy?"

My response: Patrick has made a good observation here, that "objective-truth is not something that can be attained." I agree with Patrick that there is a problem here. But it is not that there are no "objective facts" that can be known in biology. There is a large body of evidence supporting many demonstrable facts. It is just that those professing a knowledge of biology, and attempting to teach it, try to bend what is known to fit into the framework of their choice; which too often is Darwinism. This is pretty much what Dr. Stuart A. Kauffman was getting at when he wrote: "It has been said that a weakness of some biologists is persistent physics-envy: the seeking of a deep structure to biology" (P. 643, "The Origin of Origins," c1993).

Patrick, the solution to the problem that both you and I, and all true scientists, seek could be set in motion in an instant if those charged with buying textbooks for our public schools selected only those texts that contained what is scientifically demonstrable. If this were done, the name of Darwin would be relegated to a footnote; and then only to reference the foolishness of the past 100 plus years.

Patrick, another interesting issue that you raise is this: "...how then can objective-truth be reached through subjective means such as science, religion, and philosophy?" One has to view the disciplines of science as different from the disciplines of religion and philosophy. There is a great deal of room for speculation, and subjective reasoning, in religion and philosophy.

Science, on the other hand, by definition cannot be close friends with subjectivity. Certainly, subjectivity does enter into a person's initial choice of his particular field of scientific endeavor. But, ideally, a person's "scientific subjectivity" should end once he selects the field of science he wishes to pursue. From that point on, he must put away all his pre-conceptions and prejudices, and set about developing empirical proofs -- that is, doing the work of real science. When ever a scientific scholar moves away from objectivity, he ceases to do the work of a real scientist.

Darwin was a scholar, but never a real scientist. He was first and foremost a racist bigot. His very un-scientific works reflect his pre-conceptions in this area.

Patrick writes: "It seems as if some Darwinians are just as dogmatic as some
theologians. I think everyone needs to ease up a bit. Personally, I think
Socrates was right when he said that the greatest wisdom comes from knowing
that you know nothing."

My response: Patrick has here made another good observation. I would agree that both Darwinians and most theologians are like "sticks-in-the-mud."

I would also agree with Patrick's paraphrase of Socrates. All we can do, in science, is get as close to ultimate truth as possible. ...And, when ever we white-knuckle outdated notions because we fear where truth might be leading, our work ceases to serve a practical scientific purpose.

Thanks again, Patrick, for your outstanding letters. (Click here to read Patrick's original correspondence.)

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.