Ron Lalonde, Good Schools, 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

Ron L. raises some good (and some not so good) points about Darwin

Ron L. (hereafter referred to as "Ron") writes a long and fairly well-written letter to Goodschools. To be fair (as always), I will print his letter in total. As I have done in the past with particularly long letters, I will at first include small segments of his letter, and comment upon them. Then, at the end of this article, Ron's letter will be printed verbatim.

It is obvious that Ron is a staunch "old school" Darwinist. I am always happy to receive letters from people like Ron. You know what they say, there's no "schooler" like an "old schooler." (Since original publication, Ron has provided a short biography. Ron indicates that he works at a major Medical Center (in Medical Physics) located in Pennsylvania, that he holds a PhD in Biophysics, and that he has a lifelong interest in evolutionary biology and Shakespeare. He has asked me to remove his last name from his letter, and I have complied. He has written several of follow-up letters to Goodschools, which I will treat at a later time.)

For the most part, Ron is civil -- condescending, but civil. Ron's letter, while interesting, appears to me to be a stock letter, one whose parts he may have used before to attack arguments with which he disagrees. I think this because several times he wrongly attributes words and arguments to me, and then attacks them, as though he may have come up with his arguments in response to others. Notwithstanding some shortcomings, I appreciate Ron's letter very much.

Ron begins with these words:

"Dear Mike: I would like to make a few simple points about Darwin and evolution that you (and your readers) should think about: Evolution was formed from scientific observations on animals and plants, not racism. The first point is easily proved by reading the Origin of Species. I invite you to do so."

My response:

It is clear from the beginning that Ron intends to rely more on sarcasm than substance -- a typical tactic employed by old-school Darwinists. Apparently they believe that what they cannot demonstrate with facts, they can accomplish with condescension. This ploy may work on the public comment section of his local newspaper, but it carries no water in this debate.

I would make these specific comments on this section of his letter:

Ron apparently is not aware of the correct title for Darwin's first great work. Ron calls it "the Origin of Species" (the quotation marks are mine).   As any good undergraduate student surely knows, that is not the correct title, nor is it the correct way to write any book title. The definite article "The" is also part of the original title of Darwin's work; furthermore, it has historically been part of the title for all subsequent publications and printings. Therefore, because it is the first word of the title, it must be capitalized.   It might seem a minor error, however it is significant.    Had it not involved the central focus of Ron's letter, I would have let it pass. Correctly written, the full name of Darwin's landmark book is "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." (The topic title historically has been referred to as "On the Origin of Species;" but never is this Darwin book ever correctly referred to as "the Origin of Species," using a lower case "t" on the first word of the title.)    Generally speaking, most writers today shorten the title to "The Origin of Species." Furthermore, Ron should be aware that when he writes the title of a book, he should either use quotation marks (as I did above), or use italics.

One does not have to go past the first sentence of Ron's letter to discover that he has a problem with basic English syntax. He writes: "Evolution was formed from scientific observations on animals and plants..."   Ron should be instructed that evolution was not formed from scientific "anythings." Evolution was not formed, period. The term "evolution," simply defined, denotes a "series of related changes in a certain direction."   This process was not formed by people observing it, as one would infer from Ron's statement. One can correctly say something such as: "The theory of evolution was formed from..."   However, it is semantically incorrect to form the sentence in the fashion Ron did.

Ron makes another (even more serious) mistake in this short segment of his letter. He states that one has only to read "the Origin of Species" [sic] to understand that Darwin based his theory of evolution on scientific observations on animals and plants, not racism. On the surface there seems to be a kernel of significance (if not truth) to what Ron writes here. However, as I have clearly demonstrated in other writings on this site, "The Origin of Species" (Origin) must be viewed only in the context of the other half of Darwin's endeavor to establish his whole theory of evolution, his "The Descent of Man" (Descent). Darwin himself inextricably connects the two works. ...And, Descent clearly demonstrates his purely racist underlying mindset.   All knowledgeable writers on the subject, even those staunch apologists such as Dr. H. James Birx, acknowledge Darwin's racism.

Ron then writes:

"There is also documented evidence of Darwin's support of abolition after the publication of the Origin, notably during the American Civil War, when he stated before the (very racist) British Anthropological Society that "that the destruction of Slavery would be well worth a dozen years war" , and that there was "no scientific justification for slavery".

This completely contradicts the basis of your web site's argument that evolution is a theory born from Darwin's inherent racism. Darwin was not a racist, but rather, for his century, a man of tolerant views on race. His belief in the absolute superiority of Western civilization was taught from birth to every child in Europe and America. It is very unfair to judge a man of Darwin's time by the standards of ours."

My response:

Ron makes two very serious mistakes in this short segment: 1--He confuses "racism" with "anti-abolitionism." 2--He draws his conclusion (that my support of the widely-held theory of Darwin's racism is erroneous) based upon his confusion of the terms "racism" and "anti-abolitionism." I will explain:

I never refuted that Darwin was against slavery. That is a given. There is clear evidence of this. Darwin was an abolitionist.   He was, however, also a raging racist (I am presently working on a lengthy article which will deal with this issue in depth; but for now, a short explanation will have to suffice.): It is clear that Darwin did not view the Aborigines or black peoples as fully human, and that he predicted their eventual extinction. To Darwin, such beings ranked between Caucasians and "anthropomorphous apes;" in other words, they were not fully human in the finest sense of the term, at least not as fully human as Caucasians.

Ron's mistake here is that he thinks that simply because Darwin did not wish to enslave groups of human-like beings, that he was not a racist. No such conclusion can be drawn. While Darwin might never have owned a slave; and while, if given the power, he most likely would have freed all slaves; he still was a raging racist. Darwin viewed himself as a "beneficent zoo keeper," not a plantation owner.   ...And that is what Ron is. He is a racist of the same ilk as Darwin. Ron, and those who think like him in the elite educational establishment of today, are responsible for the racial problems that exist throughout America and the whole of western civilization. He gets up on his soap boxes and preaches tolerance, while at the same time striving to suppress black peoples through his flat-earth Darwinian evolution.   He may not wish to own slaves, but he sure does not mind playing the part of the beneficent zoo keeper.

I have no patience with such blatant disregard for honesty. Ron, how can you support the educational establishment that has been built around Darwin's racist theory of evolution? For you to have thought this thing through, and to have acted in the fashion you have, means one of four things: 1--that you actually believe black peoples and aborigines inherently represent something less than do white people; 2--that you are intellectually lazy; 3--that you fear alternatives; or, 4--that you are not very bright.

Ron, which is it?

Darwin wrote this:

At some future period (Darwin writes), 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).

I would would like to parody Darwin's words to convey what I think on this subject:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by months and years, African-Americans will almost certainly rise up against the public school system in this country that propagates purely racist teachings, teachings which are totally at odds with those held by the real scientific community.   When this happens, when African-Americans fully exercise their power against the system that for the past 70 years has taught white (and black) children that it was white destiny to be the beneficent zoo keepers overseeing and controlling every aspect of the existence of the lesser beings known as African-Americans; then we will find out what reparations are really all about. There will be hell (and more) to pay when it is finally demonstrated to all that while white Americans may no longer run plantations, they still feel it their god-given right to maintain their "Darwinian zoos."

I declare that there ought not ever to have been zoos for people. I declare that Darwin was wrong -- that Caucasians are not superior to the black peoples of the world. I declare that from the days of John Dewey to the present time, American education is patently racist. ...And any one who espouses Darwin's theory of evolution, is patently racist, or at least de facto racist (if he is naive). I do not care how well the zoo keeper treats those under his charge, I do not believe that any people should be regarded or treated like second-class human beings.

I declare that while it was a good thing to end slavery, the time has now come to close out the beneficent zoo-keeper era as well. Now is the time to put an end to Darwin's racism in America. Now is the time to boot the racist Darweenies out of our educational system -- for good. It is time for a "seed" change in education in America.   We need to encourage a new crop of teachers, -- new teachers, ones who are not corrupted with old thinking.   The longer this archaic, idiotic racist notion of Darwin is propagated, the longer it will be before racial healing can take place.

I have no doubt in my mind that over the course of the next 25 years this nation will pay through the nose for 70 years of this beneficent zoo-keeper mentality. There is already a strong movement in the African-American community seeking reparations, and rightly so. So far the provocateurs of this endeavor have rooted their rhetoric in the slavery issue.   I think that this beneficent zoo-keeper teaching of Darwin that rules in our public schools provides a much stronger case in support of that effort. Because it is contemporary, it represents a far better argument than the 150-year-old slavery issue. "Zoo-keeper racism" is going on right now in every school in this nation. It must be stopped, and the reparations movement might be the only way to accomplish it.

This unfortunate problem has been brought about and propagated by well-meaning people such as Ron himself. He so strongly believes in the inherent superiority posited to him by Darwin, that he is not willing to face the truth.

Face it, Ron, you are the problem. If you are in education, and you are propagating your "old-think;" then, for the sake of what is right, you should subject your career to an application of "weed and feed." You should pull yourself out by the roots and allow a new crop of educators to take your place. ...New seed, new crop.

Ron then writes:

Darwin's racism (or lack thereof) has absolutely no bearing on the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. ... "The only thing that matters to a scientific theory is whether the weight of evidence supports the predictions of a theory or not. ... Scientific theories are not moral, only correct or incorrect.

My response:

I agree here with most of what Ron is writing. (I do have a problem with his sentence construction in one instance. He writes: "The only thing that matters to a scientific theory is whether the weight of evidence supports the predictions of a theory or not."    I think he was intending this: "The only thing that matters with regard to a scientific theory is whether or not the weight of evidence supports the predictions of that theory."   The manner in which Ron frames his thoughts leaves room for conjecture as to which theory he is referring -- he introduces two theories in the same sentence, each preceded by the indefinite article "a."    I assume my rendering of his thoughts are correct, and he is actually referring to one and the same theory. Perhaps English is not Ron's primary language.)

I did indicate that I agreed with most of Ron's thoughts here, at least as I interpret them.   Where he goes wrong is in his opening: "Darwin's racism (or lack thereof) has absolutely no bearing of the scientific validity of the theory of evolution." I have two problems with this sentence.

When a "scientist" is writing about "race," and when that "scientist" evidences blatant racist predispositions inside the body of his "scientific" demonstrations, then I think the outcomes arrived at by such a "scientist" just might be suspect. Especially in light of the fact that no real research scientists (those who by definition reside outside the schools of education) today believe Darwin's theories represent the best solutions to origins, much less evolution.

Not to disagree with Darwin's "science" is to admit that black peoples and Aborigines, as historic groups, represent something almost quasi-human; fitting between the the Caucasian and the "anthropomorphous apes," to use Darwin's owns words.

In my opinion, what we have with Darwin's model is this.   It did not matter a great deal to Darwin that his theories were flawed and blatantly racist; they provided answers to (to what was deemed a reasonable degree) some of the more nagging questions of the day. So, Darwinism was accepted. His model was (again in my opinion) much like what Steven Weinberg (Dreams of a Final Theory, p.25) describes as a "kludge." Weinberg (in a different context) uses this computer "hacker" term to define a model which is "an assortment of odds and ends thrown together in whatever way works." The problem is, with Darwin, some of these "odds and ends" constitute what is commonly called "blatant racism."   Darwin was racist in the 19th century, and his views as presented today still smack of racism.

Ron then writes:

The vast majority of the world's biologists support the theory of evolution.

You give a great many quotes on your web site, almost all of which state in some form or other that ''evolution is wrong", but give no evidence at all as to why it is wrong or what a more correct theory might be. Yet for every quote you give from anti-Darwinists, one could come up with a hundred from those who support biological evolution (in the broader sense of the word). If the people who have actually studied biology all their lives support evolution, why should people listen to mathematicians and chemists?

I note with amusement that you quote Stuart Kauffman and Loren Eisely, both fine scientists and both pro-evolutionary biologists- Eisely even wrote a book called Darwin's Century, which I doubt you've read. It has long been a custom of creationists to endlessly parrot out of context quotes from reputable scientists. Until and unless you have actually read anything by Kauffman or Eisely but the short quotes you list, I would ask for their sakes that you stop slandering them and take their names off your web site.

My response:

Ron gets very confused here. He jumps back and forth between the theory of evolution, and Darwin's theory of evolution, using the terms interchangeably. Perhaps Ron is not aware of the fact that they are not interchangeable. Kauffman's theory of origins and evolution is quite different from Darwin's notions of these concepts.

Ron suggests that it is my job to choose a replacement for the teaching of Darwin in public schools. How silly and unscientific Ron is. It is not my job to find Darwin's replacement. I merely have to prove him wrong, and I have done that. What Ron is really saying here is that because he finds his little lie (Darwin's teachings) more politically palatable than the alternatives (whatever they might be), he would prefer to continue with the lie. This smacks of "flat-earth" science.

Ron notes "with amusement" that I quote "...Kauffman and Loren Eisely [sic]," and suggests that I am guilty of slander for quoting them. Ron accuses me of quoting these scholars "out of context," but gives no examples.   In no instance has any of the author's quoted suggested that I quoted them out of context. No where do I quote out of context, and in every case I document my sources. Ron, again, is dead wrong.

I do marvel at the fact that Ron is obviously so accomplished in the field of biology that he feels he can take the liberty of misspelling Loren Eiseley's name -- not once, but twice.    Ron must obviously be very close to Loren Eiseley to feel the freedom to abridge his name. Or, perhaps, Ron is speaking about a different scientist, one who is as Ron calls his "Eisely," a "biologist," as Loren Eiseley is best described as an anthropologist, not a biologist.   Perhaps the Loren Eisely about whom Ron is referring is a biologist, not an anthropologist. I suppose that could be the case.   Or, perhaps Ron is again just demonstrating his over-abundance of Oscar Meyer.

Ron then writes:

Last but not least, the dirty little secret you try to keep off of your web page: The vast majority of the anti-Darwinists are fundamentalist Christians.

The majority of the anti-Darwinists, and the most vocal and active of them, believe that the Biblical story of creation is literally true, and that the earth was formed in 7 calendar days, 6000 years ago. This belief not only conflicts with modern biology, but also geology, physics, astronomy, indeed, most of modern science.

In days past, the people who led this movement were at least honest about this fact, and referred to themselves as 'Creationists' or 'Scientific Creationists'. Lately, of course, there has been a movement called 'Intelligent Design', led by the biochemist Michael Behe, who scrupulously (and ridiculously) avoids identifying who the 'Intelligent Designer' might be.

If people wish to believe in the Biblical creation story, by all means, let them. Just don't teach in a classroom as science.

My response:

With all logic failing him, Ron then trips into the same pit that eventually engulfs all light-weight Darwinists -- he plays the "creationist card."   I love it when Darwinists do this.   This is what is happening here: Ron could not argue the facts; he could not stick to the point; he could not refute the fact that Darwin is a raging racist; or that Darwin's theories are supported only by stuck-in-the-mud educators, not by real scientists.   So, he creates a paper tiger (the creation argument), and then attacks that make-believe enemy.   At this point he has given up on defeating me and my arguments. He can't be attacking me any longer, for not one time, not in all the years I have written about the racism and un-scientific nature of Darwin teachings, have I introduced creationism --- not one time.   In every single case, light-weight Darwinists paint me with this brush, and then attack me. But they are not really attacking me or my arguments, they are attacking the paper tiger of their own creation.

All Ron is doing here is going "cliché."   He has no other weapons left in his little arsenal.   His arguments fail him. He is a defeated man.

He ends the main part of his letter with these words: "If people wish to believe in the Biblical creation story, by all means, let them. Just don't teach in a classroom as science."

I am so happy that Ron has waved his magic wand, thus granting religious people his permission to practice their religion. That is more than many Darwinists are willing to do. Thank you, Ron, for your generosity.  It is nice to know that you are willing to accept that part of the Constitution.

Regarding the last sentence in this segment, I do not understand what he is trying to convey.   He writes (as a sentence): "Just don't teach in a classroom as science." What in the world is that supposed to be? It is worse than a sentence fragment. I think it could be called a "sentence doubly-fragmented," if there is such a thing.

I certainly hope Ron is not a teacher. Perhaps he is a hockey player. They just have to knock a puck around, and spit missing their skates. If Ron is a hockey player, then he certainly stands head and shoulders above most; for Ron can not only shoot a puck and spit, but he can produce sophomoric prose. Ron is probably a hockey player.

Ron's epilogue:

Since you seem to take great pleasure in pointing out mistakes in the letters you receive, allow me to return the favor: In your page on the Kansas 8^th grade test from the last century (which contains an admirable amount of English grammar, but absolutely no science), you call for a 'seed change' in American education. The correct phrase, as the well-educated know, is 'sea change', and it comes from William Shakespeare, in the Tempest.

Yours, Ron

My response:

Quite the opposite of what Ron suggests, the test in question does contain much more than grammar. It includes sections on Geography, Orthography, U.S. History and Arithmetic, as well as Grammar. I believe the curriculum, at that time, incorporated the sciences starting with the ninth grade program.

At any rate, Ron assumes that I must have intended "sea change" as opposed to "seed change." Again, Ron is wrong. However, I will grant Ron this: While I did intend "seed change," not "sea change" as he supposes, I might have better served my cause had I placed "seed" in quotation marks, thus indicating that I was making a play on the word. Again, this is Ron's predilection for cliché shining through.

In Conclusion:

I realize that I have not been terribly kind to Ron. I do not apologize. The tone of Ron's letter was very rude and condescending. As far as content is concerned, Ron was not only poorly organized and outstandingly wrong, but he was cliché as well -- there is never an excuse for cliché.

I do, however, wish to express my thanks to Ron for being willing to debate me in this forum. It does take courage.

Perhaps you, the person reading this article right now, perhaps you would like to take me to task. I would truly enjoy the challenge.

(Click here to read an interesting letter from a reader who has also had a dialog with Ron.)

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

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

Ron's letter verbatim:

Dear Mike: I would like to make a few simple points about Darwin and evolution that you (and your readers) should think about:

Evolution was formed from scientific observations on animals and plants, not racism.

The first point is easily proved by reading the Origin of Species. I invite you to do so. To prove the second part of that statement, I would point out the following from your reply to Geoff, an earlier correspondent, who quoted from Darwin's volume on the voyage of the Beagle to South America. The quote was Darwin's passionate attack on slavery in the Americas (in fact, Darwin's father was a leader of the abolitionist movement in Britain). You replied by saying:

"Geoff, I would agree with your assessment of Darwin's words to this point: I think it safe to say that at the beginning of (and even during) his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, Darwin had not yet formulated his racist beliefs. His Christian idealism (which he attributes to himself) led him to be able to identify with the slaves. "

There is also documented evidence of Darwin's support of abolition after the publication of the Origin, notably during the American Civil War, when he stated before the (very racist) British Anthropological Society that "that the destruction of Slavery would be well worth a dozen years war" , and that there was "no scientific justification for slavery".

This completely contradicts the basis of your web site's argument that evolution is a theory born from Darwin's inherent racism. Darwin was not a racist, but rather, for his century, a man of tolerant views on race. His belief in the absolute superiority of Western civilization was taught from birth to every child in Europe and America. It is very unfair to judge a man of Darwin's time by the standards of ours.

His speculation on Caucasians wiping out other races did not say this was morally right, only that it might happen, if past history was any indication. (And, of course, it did happen, in America, Australia, the Belgian Congo...)

2) Darwin's racism (or lack thereof) has absolutely no bearing on the scientific validity of the theory of evolution.

Scientists are people, like any others. Some are horrible racists (like William Shockley, the inventor of the transistor). Some hold liberal views, some conservative, some are Christians, some Muslim, Hindu or any other of the world's faiths. None of this matters to a scientific theory. The only thing that matters to a scientific theory is whether the weight of evidence supports the predictions of a theory or not.

By the same token, whether or not some person has used the theory of evolution to support a heinous crime has no bearing on its value as science. Geoff correctly pointed out that Christianity, which preaches peace and love, has been used to justify war and hatred. Scientific theories are not moral, only correct or incorrect.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Much has been written elsewhere about the definition of a scientific theory, but one essential property is that it is testable. This does not mean, as is often quoted simplistically by creationists, that you can directly observe it happening now. No one has ever seen an electron. Indirect evidence is just as valid.

Paradoxically, predictions can be made about things that happened in the past. One may predict, for example, that the fossil record will later reveal the development of a certain intermediate trait, based upon a supposed evolutionary pathway. If such a fossil is found at a later date, that is a correct prediction.

You have made much of Darwin's speculation that a superior race of men would in time exterminate a lesser race. Yet this is precisely what is now known to have happened between Neanderthal man and Homo Sapiens, who coexisted in Europe in the last Ice Age.

The vast majority of the world's biologists support the theory of evolution.

You give a great many quotes on your web site, almost all of which state in some form or other that ''evolution is wrong", but give no evidence at all as to why it is wrong or what a more correct theory might be. Yet for every quote you give from anti-Darwinists, one could come up with a hundred from those who support biological evolution (in the broader sense of the word). If the people who have actually studied biology all their lives support evolution, why should people listen to mathematicians and chemists?

I note with amusement that you quote Stuart Kauffman and Loren Eisely, both fine scientists and both pro-evolutionary biologists- Eisely even wrote a book called Darwin's Century, which I doubt you've read. It has long been a custom of creationists to endlessly parrot out of context quotes from reputable scientists. Until and unless you have actually read anything by Kauffman or Eisely but the short quotes you list, I would ask for their sakes that you stop slandering them and take their names off your web site.

Last but not least, the dirty little secret you try to keep off of your web page:

The vast majority of the anti-Darwinists are fundamentalist Christians.

The majority of the anti-Darwinists, and the most vocal and active of them, believe that the Biblical story of creation is literally true, and that the earth was formed in 7 calendar days, 6000 years ago. This belief not only conflicts with modern biology, but also geology, physics, astronomy, indeed, most of modern science.

In days past, the people who led this movement were at least honest about this fact, and referred to themselves as 'Creationists' or 'Scientific Creationists'. Lately, of course, there has been a movement called 'Intelligent Design', led by the biochemist Michael Behe, who scrupulously (and ridiculously) avoids identifying who the 'Intelligent Designer' might be.

If people wish to believe in the Biblical creation story, by all means, let them. Just don't teach in a classroom as science.

Since you seem to take great pleasure in pointing out mistakes in the letters you receive, allow me to return the favor: In your page on the Kansas 8^th grade test from the last century (which contains an admirable amount of English grammar, but absolutely no science), you call for a 'seed change' in American education. The correct phrase, as the well-educated know, is 'sea change', and it comes from William Shakespeare, in the Tempest.

Yours,

Ron

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.