November 9 to November 15
Blind scientism no answer
Many of the views expressed in your letters section last week demonstrate how science is being confused with the philosophy of scientific naturalism. True science should involve evaluating evidence and deriving conclusions from it, whatever these conclusions may be.
Many evolutionists assume the presupposition that the Earth is a closed system with no possibility of past or present intervention, and so no possibility of intelligent design. Starting with this presupposition will inevitably lead to the explanation of evolution alone. But is this blind “scientism” really intent on searching for the truth?
The theory of macro-evolution is opposed by many pieces of evidence, including the Cambrian explosion and irreducible complexity. Macro-evolution itself still needs at least one verifiable example.
It is no good assuming the theory to prove the theory.
The zeal with which evolutionists have often pursued their cause is also disturbing. Many pieces of “strong supporting evidence” have, on further investigation, been found to have been staged. The peppered moth and a host of “missing links” serve as proof of such hoaxes.
Let us replace “presuppositional scientism” with true science, and let it be taught as such.—Stephen Richards
For all its emphasis on anti-racism, the ANC government seems to have the blinkers on when it comes to the disastrous influence Darwinists’ assumptions and guesses have had on some of the cruellest leaders the world has known.
The subtitle of Darwin’s The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection is “The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life”. In Germany Hitler used the favoured races theory to justify his eugenics experiments and wipe out six million Jews, homosexuals and Gypsies.
In the South African context, the favoured races theory served the creators of the apartheid ideology.
The introduction of evolution in the curriculum, therefore, should be done with the utmost care, if at all.—Robert de Neef, Howick
The uninformed quotes selected from the life science teachers in the Mail & Guardian‘s article could not have reflected the view of the average life science teacher in South Africa. If they did, most life science learners would not pass their matric exams. The effect on university level biology would be even more pronounced.
The education department was also represented as being sensitive to religious pressure. While it is the department’s duty to present evolution as a theory, it is also its duty to contextualise it as the theory that is overwhelmingly accepted.
The theory of evolution makes no direct claims as to the existence or non-existence of God, nor does it require any behaviour or religious belief. It offers the simplest explanation available for the diversity of life on the planet.—Gordon Inggs, University of Cape Town Atheists and Agnostics Society
The unbudging stance of evolutionists belongs in the Dark Ages. Has no one heard of creation science, supported by many esteemed scientists?—Denese Koch, Bluff, Durban
Let’s grant one point to the creationists: it is very difficult to reconcile the findings of evolutionary biology with a religious world view in an intellectually honest way. Creationists are right to note that religion and evolution clash.
The conciliatory attitude remains popular, no doubt for reasons of political correctness.—Alex Myers, Newlands, Cape Town
Having established that the theory of evolution should be taught in schools, the next step is to ensure that schools do not teach, as fact, the doctrines of intelligent design, creationism, chosen racism and other fanciful nonsense.—Oliver Price, Scarborough, Cape Town
Thabo Mohlala’s article mentions that the theory of evolution has a “growing body of followers”, making it sound like a religious sect. It is one of the cornerstones of modern science, overwhelmingly supported by scientists. It has no scientific competititon.
By injecting a spurious paragraph about Christian parents in the United States challenging its teaching in schools, he further casts evolution as a philosophical idea competing in religious space.
Evolution is taught as part of the US school curriculum—specifically because it is science, not religion. This was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1987, and more recently in the famous Dover intelligent design case.
But most alarming are the quotes Mahlala has gathered. Did a teacher really say: “I am disappointed about the fact that evolution attacks God’s creation. It also mixes Genesis with idol worshippers of Babylon, which were never there when God created planet Earth”?
That this was uttered by a teacher who might teach evolution is sickening.
The teachers who think evolution is a racist theory also do not have the slightest grasp of the theory.
One says: “[It] terribly undermines black people, everything bad gets a black colour. It means blacks were apes.” The fact is that the ancestors of all humans were probably black, for good biological and evolutionary reasons. Evolutionary biology dispels racist myths.—Tim Beck, Sandton, Johannesburg
No ‘third way’ candidates
Analysts who tell us of “third way” candidates in the ANC succession debate, such as Cyril Ramaphosa and Tokyo Sexwale, are mischievous or naïve.
Having effectively ruled the ANC and the country for three terms, Thabo Mbeki’s primary agenda remains the exclusion of Jacob Zuma from attaining the ANC’s and South Africa’s top position.
The election of either Ramaphosa or Sexwale will favour that agenda; there is no such thing as a compromise candidate in the current climate.
The support of the business establishment and most white people for Ramaphosa and Sexwale is based on the ignorant and prejudiced perception that they will protect their interests.—Themba Mathaba, Morningside, Durban
Everyone is eager to lead—but what about service delivery?—Sisa Cyril ka Jikeka, ANC Youth League
On October 30, the SABC interviewed the chairperson of one branch in KwaZulu-Natal on the fact that his branch nominated Mbeki to lead the ANC.
How did the SABC choose that chairperson? Who told it about the internal decisions of that branch? And why were other branches not interviewed? The SABC did not report on the 171 branches in the Eastern Cape that have nominated Zuma, compared to the 176 for Mbeki. In Mpumalanga almost all branches have nominated Zuma, but they received no publicity.
Please spare us the propaganda and serve the public, which has different political affiliations.—Solly Maseko, branch secretary, ANC Ehlanzeni Region, Mpumalanga
No ‘apartheid thinking’
Jeff Rudin (October 26) raises important points about the use of “racial” categories, and criticises my “apartheid thinking” approach to employment equity as the UCT vice-chancellor designate.
Rudin’s version of the Employment Equity Act is inaccurate. The law does require that employment statistics be submitted annually in terms of the categories “Indian”, “coloured” and “African”. UCT is therefore obliged to use such categories.
However, I do not want to hide behind the legal obligation since I also believe it is the right thing to do, at least for a period. Grouping all previously disenfranchised groups together as black is at odds with one of the core objectives of affirmative action and employment equity—to address past disadvantage.
On average, African students were recipients of a more deprived education than children in coloured or Indian schools. Surely, when selecting matriculants and assessing their school performance, it would add insult to injury not to take this legacy of disadvantage into account?
Racial categories are social constructs, not biological realities. And social constructs can change—but this takes time. I hope that the time will come when South Africans will no longer resort to racial classification.
But we are only 13 years from the formal abolition of apartheid and much remains to be done to reverse the legacy of racial social engineering. Resorting to the racial categories of apartheid will also be necessary to hold leaders accountable for the extent of redress that post-apartheid enables.
Many critics of the bureaucratic use of “racial” categories also take issue with how, in the absence of the old Population Registration Act, people can be classified in these categories.
My answer is that since it was apartheid legislation and social engineering that first classified people and then discriminated between them on that basis, and since it is this legacy that affirmative action is trying to address, it is appropriate to use apartheid categories and that people are categorised the way they were under apartheid.
This is not apartheid thinking, it is about taking the legacy of apartheid seriously.—Max Price
Conference was not a farce
In writing about Africa’s brain drain, David Macfarlane (October 26) betrays his dim view of African vice-chancellors. He doubts vice-chancellors could ever put forward concrete measures to arrest the brain drain or whether the Association of African Universities conference will meet its objectives, as outlined by Njabulo Ndebele.
The University of Cape Town would not be what it is without the foresight and leadership of a lineage of vice-chancellors there. Yet Macfarlane and those he interviewed believe these vice-chancellors become stupefied at conferences.
I can feel some of Macfarlane’s rather premature frustration. Like me and those he quotes, we were frustrated and impatient with the initial sessions of the conferences. These provided definitions, statistics and rehashed or reformulated the problem. Alas, that is the approach at a conference of academics!
I wish Macfarlane had stayed for the later sessions. I didn’t see him when I presented our working group report on October 25. For example, the World Bank panel presented case studies on what was being done in other continents to ameliorate this problem. The working groups—at least the one of which I was rapporteur—came up with clear proposals and infused ideas from case studies.
I believe the Association of African Universities should be given the right of reply to the not-so-veiled allegation that its conference was a farce.—Thandwa Mthembu, Vice-Chancellor of Central University of Technology, Free State
DG report card omissions
In your interesting report card on directors general (November 2), you suggest Manala Manzini is the director general of intelligence. Manzini does fall under the intelligence department, but you should have made it clear that he is the director general of the National Intelligence Agency.
You should also have assessed Hilton Dennis, the director general of the South African Secret Service, as he also falls under the department of intelligence and is Manzini’s equal.—Mandla Nkosi
Why was Statistics SA left out?—Anthony Murray McGregor
In brief
Graham McIntosh claims that “common sense knows [that] the death penalty is a powerful deterrent” (Letters, November 2). Fear of death—isn’t that why no one smokes any more, not since the warnings on the packs? Our jails are full of people who chain smoke and don’t foresee that lung cancer will kill them. But I’m sure the thought of the death penalty will be different—then they’ll stop and think before they plunder and pillage. No, really.—B Keen, Grahamstown
Simon Barber and the Homecoming Revolution (November 2) have one thing in common—they treat the effect of the skills flight from South Africa, not the cause. Neither has the courage to confront the primary reason: the race-based policies of the ANC government. Their efforts should be directed inwards, towards creating an enabling environment to which foreigners would naturally gravitate without the blandishment of their campaigns.—Michael Barber, Mount Edgecombe
The M&G seems to be correctiional services Director General Vernie Peterson’s spin doctor. The seven-day establishment system is said to be his brainchild, when it was decided in 2005 under Linda Mti.—Disappointed reader
The Chinese bank that has bought into Standard is not commercial but state-owned. Isn’t that equivalent to foreign states owning property in South Africa? I thought that wan’t allowed.—David Stevenson, Magaliesburg
