Tamayo, Good Schools, Melisa Myers, 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

Mr. Flavia Tamayo

--Thoughtful Comments on Darwin

Mr. Tamayo Writes:
It is unfortunate that in today's day in age we would try to "cover up" Darwin's work and discredit it. Instead, we need to look at his research and take from it what has advanced humanity. I am not arguing that Darwin is not a racist. That is not the point. As institutions of learning are [sic] job is to teach children so they may learn and draw their own conclusions, not feed them piece meals [sic] of information that is "okay" because we agree with it. The very fact that Darwin may have been a racist as Hitler was, is exactly why they [sic] belong in the curriculum---students need to be exposed and learn the inconsistencies and sometimes blatant lies that occur in their theories. Shoving it under the carpet only propagates it.

Flavia Tamayo

I respond:

Point #1:

Tamayo writes: "It is unfortunate that in today's day in age we would try to "cover up" Darwin's work and discredit it. ."

My response: I totally disagree with Tamayo here. Darwin was a a racist. His "science" was ridiculous. His work needs to be discredited.

Point #2:

Tamayo writes: "...we need to look at his research and take from it what has advanced humanity."

My response: We study Hitler. We read about his inhumanity, his horrific murders, and his racism. If we would approach Darwin on that basis, I would be in favor. However, that is not how schools teach Darwin. Instead, teachers wink at Darwin's racism, and treat his theory of origins and natural selection as though they had merit. Darwin's racism has "advanced humanity" in just about the same fashion as Hitler's gas chambers advanced health care.

Point #3:

Tamayo writes: "I am not arguing that Darwin is not a racist. That is not the point."

My response: This does not make sense to me. The driving force behind Darwin's theory of origins was blatant racism, not science. Remember, the evidence that Darwin was a racist is easily discovered, he did not hide it. It can be seen in the subtitle selected for his "The Origin of Species." The words he chose to describe his effort were: "The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". That should be enough for anyone. Darwin was out to prove the superiority of the white race over the black. That goal was at the core of his stated thesis! He had an agenda, and that agenda was not scientific. (Click here for note on this subject)

Point #4:

Tamayo writes: "As institutions of learning are [sic] job is to teach children so they may learn and draw their own conclusions, not feed them piece meals [sic] of information that is "okay" because we agree with it"

My response: Our institutions of learning need to stick to facts. We need to present to students what we know to be factual. We know Darwinism is not factual. The scientific community (I am not talking about our schools of education) confirms that it is bad science, Furthermore, we know that Darwin was a raging racist. It is not the "job" of our institutions of learning to mislead. I do not want my children corrupted by that sort of environment.

I would agree totally with Tamayo's assertion that we should not allow the curriculum to be developed around "conclusions" simply because certain interest groups "agree with it." Unfortunately, that is exactly what we've got now. The "political correctness" advocates control the curriculum. Truth and science mean nothing to them. It is with white knuckles that they hang on to Darwinism, just as the Church hung on to the flat earth theory.

Point #5:

Tamayo writes: "The very fact that Darwin may have been a racist as Hitler was, is exactly why they [sic] belong in the curriculum---students need to be exposed and learn the inconsistencies and sometimes blatant lies that occur in their theories. Shoving it under the carpet only propagates it."

My response: This sounds like a good liberal approach to education. I would really like to agree with Tamayo here. If that is how Darwinism were taught (as the nonsensical ramblings of a racist), I would be in favor of it. If that is what Mr. Tamayo has in mind, I agree with him here. As far as sweeping Darwinism "under the carpet," I am not exactly in favor of that either. I think Darwin, as a serious scientist, should be totally discredited and forgotten. However, the influence of Darwinism, as it corrupted American education, deserves one small section in every US science book. I hope it will read like this:

It is a simple fact that America was substantially racist in the 1920's.   Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the secularist movement of the day quickly espoused Darwin's racist evolutionary theories. Educational theorists such as John Dewey, playing off the fallout from the Scopes trial, were able to make Darwin's theory the mantra of public education philosophy.

As the educational awakening of the early 2000s gained momentum, American education entered what can be called its post-racist period. During that period thinking people cringed at Darwin's hatred for the African peoples, and began to view his theories for what they were -- disgraceful racism.

The speed with which this change took place was accelerated as educators looked beyond their schools of education for direction. When they looked into the scientific communities, which were responsible for doing the actual research, they found that serious scholarship for years had actually laughed at Darwin and his theory of natural selection.

Real scientists, such as 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).

With the end of Darwinism the era of racism in America came to an end.

Final Comment:

I want to thank Mr. Tamayo for submitting his letter to me. I am sure that before he committed his words to writing, he knew I would respond to them. If it were not for thinking people such as Mr. Tamayo, there would be no dialog. It takes courage to engage.

(I strongly recommend "The Origins of Order," by Stuart A. Kauffman (Oxford University Press, 1993). In the Preface of this book, Dr. Kauffman writes: This book is an attempt to focus attention on new themes in developmental and evolutionary biology. It is, in fact, an attempt to include Darwinism in a broader context..." It is not light reading, but quite enlightening.)

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

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

Note: I am afraid, Al, that 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 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. 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." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178)

In the latter quote, the significant term is "anthropomorphous ape." Again, quoting from the Oxford English Dictionary, "anthropomorphous" means: the act of something non-human, taking on the characteristics "of human form, having the form of a man." The example given from literature 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 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. (Back to Text)

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.