Debate on Creationism Essay Example for Free

Debate on Creationism Essay INTRODUCTION The dispute between representatives of the various fields of science and religious representatives is one that will last for many decades (if not centuries) to come, as each one of the two camps confirms that its view of the universe, the beginning of life, and the meaning of human being is the correct one and the one that should be, therefore, passed on to the next generations. This debate, that in some cases reached the level of confrontation, started many centuries ago when the Church rejected many of the scientific views that were presented by scientists. And this resulted, in certain events, in severe punishments that were carried out against those scientists. The specific case of the Bill 481 that was introduced to the 2001-2002 session of Ohios General Assembly claiming to improve the efficiency of science education in schools, was specifically done in order to allow the principles and the ideas of what is called ‘Intelligent Design’ in the science classes of public schools. Intelligent Design is not that different from Creationism; they both claim that the universe came to being as a result of a supreme being (God) that created it and created and everything else including humans with their present shape and form a few thousand years ago and that, therefore, evolution did not take place. There are small variations between ID and Creationism; for example, ID proponents do not call the supreme being with the title used by the various religious texts, they call Him ‘Intelligent Designer’; they do not confirm that notion that the entire universe was created several thousands years ago, and they do not claim, for instance, that humans walked the earth along with the Dinosaurs. WHAT IS SCIENCE? In order to be able to understand if Creationism or Intelligent Design can be admitted into science classes, we need to understand if they qualify to be considered science. Science, or what is also called as the scientific method, is the human technique of understanding the various natural phenomenon and the laws that govern each factor within these phenomenon in a way that is testable, repeatable, and approvable through practical tools that are agreed upon by all. From the above mentioned definition, it is evident that beliefs, personal opinions and supernatural forces are not permissible in the realm of science. Creationism and Intelligent Design rely solely on belief systems that were produced by religious thought and they take certain foundations of understanding the universe as fact when they cannot be put to test, and they cannot provide any agreed upon natural evidence to support their claims. We cannot find any element in any one of them that can be proven through testing or through repeatability. As we can understand, Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science; they are simply belief systems originating from religious thought: In the 1970s and 1980s, that [creationist] movement recast the Bible version in the language of scientific inquiry as creation science and won legislative victories requiring â€Å"equal time† in some states. That is, until 1987, when the Supreme Court struck down Louisianas law. Because creation science relies on biblical texts, the court reasoned, it lacked a clear secular purpose and violated the First Amendment clause prohibiting the establishment of religion (Ratliff). CONCLUSION The ideas of Creationism and Intelligent Design should be, if they must be, admitted in the classrooms, but not as sciences, instead, they should be taught and presented as anything else because they do not have the elements that shape science and make it what it really is. The idea that best explains the reality of Intelligent Design is what Mr. Newt Gingrich said: â€Å"Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding [of how we came to be] we now have†¦ Evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy† (Wilkinson 50-51). Works Cited Ratliff, Evan. The Crusade Against Evolution. Wired October 2004. 03 October 2006 http://www. wired. com/wired/archive/12. 10/evolution. html. Wilkinson, Francis. The Discover Interview: Newt Gingrich. Discover October 2006: 50-51.

An Internship and My Interest in Medicine Essay -- Medicine College Ad

Admissions Essay - An Internship and My Interest in Medicine    How does a hospital run without adequate water to develop X-ray films? What are the signs and symptoms of malaria? What is the most common cause of infant mortality worldwide? These are all questions to which I learned answers during my six-week clerkship in rural South Africa. That a well-rounded education is the mark of a true scholar is a belief I acquired from my high-school education, and in that spirit I flew off to try and understand some of the important issues in the changing South African health care system.    I learned more than I had anticipated was possible and can easily conclude that studying abroad is one of the quickest, most memorable, and most enjoyable ways of broadening one's education. Furthermore, it teaches lessons that are not possible to learn at home.    Tinswalo Hospital, where I worked, is small. The number of hospital beds is approximately 92, and the faculty (consisting of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, translators, and administrators) is fewer than 200. The population that the hospital serves, on the other hand, is large - approaching 200,000. Although Nelson Mandela has been increasing government funds for this and other public hospitals, diagnostic and treatment supplies are scarce. Deciding how to distribute scarce resources among a large population is a common, complicated topic in African... ...p; The world is becoming a smaller place. People are increasingly communicating across cultures and discovering how similar their problems are. These experiences encourage broad-mindedness. In addition to the traditional education, a physician studying abroad may become naturally interested in health care politics and the cultural aspects of disease developments, and may obtain a general global perspective. He or she also will learn that doctors bring their personal water from home to rural hospitals for developing X-rays in times of drought; that the most common symptoms of malaria are fever, nausea, and diarrhea; and that diarrhea and dehydration are the most common causes of infant mortality in the world.

Ethics of Welfare and Government Assistance

Patrick Cassidy PHL 215 3/23/10 Ethics of Welfare and Government Assistance When the topic of welfare is brought into an ethical discussion most individuals would surely see it as an ethical act that genuinely helps those in need. This is true to an extent, but is it possible that welfare does more harm than good? Most would argue that the hand out of money to those less fortunate is being socially responsible. The question that drives this ethical issue is where does social responsibility end and personal responsibility pick up? This question is difficult to answer because every family in need is in a different situation. Government benefits are supposed to be used as a crutch for families to get back on their feet, but about twenty percent of all families receiving welfare stay on the program for more than five years. {text:bibliography-mark} This is the base of ethical issues surrounding government assistance and social responsibility for the needy. Many individuals believe that receiving a government hand-out allows people to become satisfied with being on welfare. If programs like food stamps and welfare aren’t effective, they are essentially a black hole for the tax dollars of working Americans. There is no denying the fact that there are needy families out there who are so impoverished that they need aid, but it is nearly impossible to separate the abusers from the desperate. It is for this reason many arguments can be made for both sides of government assistance. The most common question is, how far should a government’s social responsibility stretch? The issuing of government benefits derived from tax dollars is a strong ethical dilemma that has both social and economical repercussions. text:bibliography-mark} The first way to look at this problem from an ethical and moral point of view would be from the psychological egoist perspective. An egoist is a person who believes all that matters in moral issues are the elements that deal with self. They are believers that all people’s decisions in life are based on selfishnes s. Therefore, if welfare were a charity, rather than a government run program, the psychological egoists of the world probably would most likely not contribute. On the other side of the coin, psychological egoism would suggest that all people who qualify for government benefits would try to collect these benefits. That is where psychological egoism falls short of defining exactly how humans behave. Social stigmas associated with government assistance keeps some individuals from applying. This shows that selfishness takes a backseat to pride and dignity when placed against these moral values. The real problem with government programs like welfare, food stamps, and free lunch is that the line between assistance and benefits is very dull. For example, a man who makes enough money to support his family may still qualify for welfare. If the person solely spends their welfare checks on alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling is it really helping them prosper? The reality is that every person has different tolerance for assistance. Welfare that may feel like warranted assistance for one family could be seen as excess unearned benefits for a different family. That is where the psychological egoism perspective of all actions being driven by self-interest falls apart. It also does not hold up against thoughts of compassion. If all people lacked compassion in their actions the United States government would have never been able to pass a bill to create welfare and other tax-dollar funded assistance programs. {text:bibliography-mark} There is another ethical theory that is based on people acting on self-interest, it is titled ethical egoism. There are three different types of ethical egoism; however, only two are actual theories on moral behaviors. The first is Individual ethical egoism. Individual ethical egoists believe that they should only act in self-interest, and that other around them should act out of their self-interest as well. This is the definition of being completely selfish, not only are you only looking out for yourself, but you expect others to help you along the way as well. In regards to government assistance, these people would likely complain about paying taxes for these programs, but also are very likely to want to use and abuse them. Another type of ethical egoism that exists is called universal ethical egoism. The main belief behind universal egoism remains the same as that of individual egoism; individuals should only act out of their own self-interest. Where these two types of egoism differ is that universal egoism suggests that all people should act in a selfish manner, removing all altruistic acts from society. If this type of egoism really described the actions of all people, it is likely most people would favor the individual egoism theory, for they would desire to have everybody acting for their personal interests. Both of these types of egoism don’t give a realistic grasp of the American society when dealing with government assistance. These egoists would surely all desire government benefits, but they would have no desire to give back to the community. If everybody were solely out for themselves, there would be no government assistance because working tax-payers would refuse to fund such a thing. Therefore those that believe in egoism are likely against government assistance programs, but are happy to reap the benefits if they qualify. The essential opposite to egoism is known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the idea of morality revolving around creating the most good for the most people. When it comes to decision making surrounding utilitarianism actions are based on the consequences that will ensue from the action. When this type of thinking is applied to the government assistance problem, utilitarian’s would surely side with providing those in need with as much as possible. This is a difficult position, because the abusers of these programs are still going to be allowed to collect, but if allowing these programs to operate helps the most people, then utilitarian’s will be supportive of them. This theory on moral behavior is most definitely not an accurate representation of how society actually treats the poor and needy. Most people would only like to assist individuals if they are positive that they are desperate. The thought of people abusing the system drives many people to criticize it. People are greedy, and want to make sure all their money is being spent the way they desire. Therefore, the amount of people who support utilitarianism is the reason that these government assistance programs have been established. Greed and egoism are the reason that these programs are dysfunctional in many ways. {text:bibliography-mark} Who is at fault for those who require assistance? The egoists would argue that if one acts solely on self-interest and still comes up empty, they have to sleep on the bed they have made. Utilitarianism argues the complete opposite; all people as humanity are responsible for helping out each other. Since greed and materialism dominates American culture, it would be safe to say the egoists are winning this battle. Furthermore, by allowing abuse of government assistance programs it only advances the egotistical belief that the world is every man for themselves and to take all benefits possible. This is what drives most complaints within the system, the government not doing a good enough job of regulating these assistance programs. The issuing of government assistance is an ethical issued because it deals with multiple different opinions on the matter all based on morals. People who believe that every family should have to earn everthing they receive are basing this reasoning off egoism. Those who feel that it is the duty of society to help those in need are basing their reasoning off of utilitarianism. The issues that most people bring up within the government assistance programs are that they are not managed and policed well enough. This is not a moral issue; rather just issues of the government not doing all it can to make sure the right people are receiving assistance. Another reason that people have a large problem with assistance is because the government is in charge of it, and some people will go against anything that is government run. For these people there is no purpose in reasoning, they simply believe the government is out to get us all. The main reason people have such strong opinions on this matter is because those who work likely envision portions of their check being mailed to people who don’t even attempt to land a job. This is what creates the social stigma associated with government assistance. In this day and age a country as prominent and developed as the United States must look out for their impoverished population. The assistance programs offered may not have all the kinks worked out and may not be well liked by everybody, but there is no denying that these programs are helping more than they are hurting. Works Cited

Being the Meat in the Sandwich Implications of the double...

One of the many ways that postcolonial literature accomplishes the task of challenging the hegemony of western imperialism is through the use of a ‘canonical counter-discourse,’ a strategy whereby ‘a post-colonial writer takes up a character or characters, or the basic assumptions of a canonical text [where a colonialist discourse is developed directly or indirectly], and unveils [its colonialist] assumptions, subverting the text for post-colonial purposes’. (Tiffin, 1987) Such a revolutionary literary project is evidently realised in Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys, a prequel that ‘writes back the centre’ of Charlotte Brontà «Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s Jane Eyre (1847). Rhys is categorical about her conscious authorial intention: ‘I immediately thought Id write a†¦show more content†¦This is evident in both the decay of Coulibri, a once-rich plantation, as well as in the riot staged by black workers out of the fear that they will soon be replace d by East-Indian coolies. Such socio-political turmoil is a direct consequence of a long period of colonisation that has given rise to serious fragmentations in society, marginalisation of certain disadvantaged groups in the interest of a materially privileged minority, a long history of oppression, miscegenation so on and so forth that lead to ongoing conflict. The emancipation of the slaves, on the one hand, resulted in the decay of the former slave owing families such as Cosway’s that lost their former privileged status in society, and on the other hand, it led to the growth of a counter-hegemony by the former slaves against the former salve owning creole minority as vengeance for their former oppressive conduct. Antoinette is a prima facie victim of this anti-colonialist neo-hegemony which is an unfortunate consequence of western colonialism. Racial impurity resulting from miscegenation is perceived in many