Katha Pollitt’s What’s the Matter with Creationism? is based on a poll on peoples belief in evolution. She argues that educated people should be more likely to believe in evolution and rants about how ridiculous it is that the percentage of people is the same between college graduates and the rest of America. She does not do a very good job of persuading her intended audience due to her lack of restraint of opinion. She degrades the people who don’t believe in evolution, which funnily enough discredits a few of her resources. The start of her essay poses a question that leads into her thesis, but doesn’t get addressed until the second paragraph. When she does address her main concern, she does it well. Directly after that, though, Pollitt …show more content…
Were the scientists of the day when they thought the earth was false frauds? No, they were misled because of a lack of complete …show more content…
Pollitt is using these remarks to make it seem as though the people that believe in evolution are quite obviously false. The problem lies in the fact that, in order to cause a change in the poll and persuade those that don’t believe to change their minds, she needs to appeal to her audience. She is defeating her own purpose by making remarks such as, “If ‘recurrent flooding’ really gets going, you may wish you’d booked a cabin.” (In the replica of Noah’s Ark) Pollitt also says, “…58 percent of Republicans are creationists, although that does explain a lot.” and, “why so many think it (being a good Christian) means refusing to use the brains god gave you.” These are a few of the comments from her essay that show her complete disgust of creationists, which are her main
To conclude, Rachel Carson is a skilled writer who employs many different rhetorical strategies and formats her information in a deliberate way to maximize the effectiveness of her argument. She appeals to emotion, but supplements her points with facts, examples, and expert opinions. Her book, Silent Spring, surely convinced many of the dangers of poisons like parathion, and inspired some to seek alternatives to aerial
By citing credible organizations and offering her own eco-friendly alternatives, she proves to the reader that she takes a particular interest in the environment and is educated to speak on it. Pairing powerful understatements and hyperboles to contrast with one another show the reader that the practice is both needless and selfish. These rhetorical techniques have a powerful impact on the reader, whose ignorance prior to reading the excerpt can no longer suffices to excuse the lack of action. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is a deeply persuasive book that not only advocates for an end to pesticides but also speaks to the obligation humans hold to protect their
Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron, “Teaching Theories: The Evolution-Creation Controversy,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 7 (Oct…1982). This article, written by Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron sheds light on the controversy of evolution vs creationism in schools and the validity of each being called a scientific theory. The work was created to answer the questions, “Which of these theories is truly scientific and which is a religious belief? Which should be taught in schools?” The article concluded in favor of evolution as a valid scientific theory that should be taught rather than creationism, but also mentioned the worth of understanding the latter.
Evolution and Creationism are both fact and theory but the question is which one should be taught in schools? Only a few school distracts have approved the teaching of evolution because it has more senitific evidence than creationism to prove that it is true. According to a new Gallup poll, just 39% of Americans believe in evolution. The Gallup polls also show that those Americans with higher education believe in the theory of evolution as opposed to those with only high school diplomas. The polls found that 74% Americans with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution theory compared to 21% of Americans with only high school diplomas. The Gallup polls suggest that the belief in the theory of evolution is associated with education. Evolution should be taught in schools because it has more scientific evidence to support it than creationism does. Also, public schools should not teach things that have to do with God, such as creationism, because the Constitution requires the separation of church and state. Finally, if we do not allow schools to teach evolution it would be a form censo...
Teaching of evolution has several issues. One of the main issue is that it is unfair to some students with a background of Christianity. Christians believe in Creationism, meaning God created the whole world or if not, most of the world. Darwin's theory of Evolution is complete contradictory of this. In the Bible, it is stated that God made humans in His image while Darwin's theory says that Humans evolved from monkeys. It is basically proving that God, does not exist, violating the first amendment, Freedom of Belief. The first amendment states "..respecting the establishment of religion..." When Christian students listen and are forced to learn the theory of Evolution, it is restricting them to worship without obstacles and is therefore, disrespecting the establishment of religion by defying the existence of God. "If Genesis were interpreted as symbolic, as a myth, fable or fantasy, then the entire role of Jesus would have to be reinterpreted."(http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm)
We humans have always thought of ourselves as being unique, whether by divine sanction or by a self-established belief in superiority. For some, this understanding is intimately tied to the traditional tenets that have long been held as fact, having only recently been challenged. For modern Christians, the literal interpretation of the Bible=s account of creation has come under attack by the development and widespread acceptance of Darwinian evolution. To some, undermining the credibility of Biblical creation directly calls into question the Bible=s authority on its moral teachings. As Ken Ham, from the WGBH Boston Video Evolution Series: What About God? states, AYwhat it [the Bible] says is what it meansYit relates to the authority of scripture and the gospelsYso, if the Bible got it wrong in astronomyYgeologyYbiologyYthen why should I trust the Bible when it talks about morality and salvation? [i]@ It is no wonder with sentiments like these that the backlash against evolution has been so strong and lasting; nonetheless, it has not been until the last few decades that such a debate has moved from the pulpit to the laboratory. With a more educated and well-informed army of Christians, who believe in creationism, the scientific evidence for evolution has now come under assault. With creationists and intelligent design advocates like Henry M. Morris and Michael J. Behe respectively, the attack on Darwin is no longer argued as religion versus evolution per se, but rather one Alegitimate@ scientific theory against another.
The beliefs of Charles Robert Darwin, as shown in his book On the Origin of Species, are controversial religiously and have been debated since its’ publication. Darwin writes “I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one” (Darwin 329). This was not how religious activists saw the book; they attacked Darwin’s beliefs and stated it is in opposition of some religious beliefs.
happen? If not, then why should science teachers teach that life evolved over billions of
Weld, J. and McNew, J.C. (December 1999) "Attitudes Toward Evolution." The Science Teacher. Volume 66. pp. 27-31.
In August of 1999, the teaching of evolution in schools was banned by the state of Kansas. In Texas, educators have debated over which textbooks to use in grade school science solely by the language of evolution each text contains. In Georgia, educators talk about replacing the word "evolution" with the phrase "biological changes over time." (1) Apparently, our apprehensions about teaching the theory of evolution are popping up all over the news. In hearing these debates, one usually thinks that it is only religious groups or fanatics trying to preserve their stories by eradicating the teaching of evolution. However, I think that culturally we have trouble accepting the theory of evolution because of other stories we tell ourselves. While religion does play a large role in our stories of creation, we have many ethics and ideals outside of faith that contrast with the theory of evolution. We may have trouble facing the facts of evolution because of what it says about the human race. Accepting the theory of evolution places us on the same level as all other species in terms of how we came into existence and how that existence will end. It means letting go of many misconceptions we hold about ourselves. For example, that humans are somehow superior or meant to wield control over the earth. It affirms that we have not been here for nearly as long as our world, and will be long gone before the world ends. Evolution, it seems to me, touches more closely on our fears about death and our place in the grand scheme of things than it does on our faith. The reason evolution comes into such great conflict with religion is because questions such as, "Where will we go after our lives here end?" are so important to us. Consequently, the fear surrounding the theory of evolution belongs not only to the religious and the fanatical, but also to anyone who has ever asked him or herself such questions. America was founded on the concepts of idealism and opportunism; we all are brought up to take advantage of our opportunities and succeed to the best of our abilities. The nature of evolution is to go against these ideals. Evolution occurs randomly, meaning the human race did not "earn" its place as sovereign of the earth. As Americans, we see ourselves working toward a society that is closer and closer to perfection.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking Origin of Species, which would introduce the seminal theory of evolution to the scientific community. Over 150 years later, the majority of scientists have come to a consensus in agreement with this theory, citing evidence in newer scientific research. In an average high school biology classroom, one may imagine an instructor that has devoted much of his life to science and a predominantly Christian class of about twenty-five students. On the topic of evolution, one of the students might ask, “Why would God have taken the long route by creating us through billion years of evolution?” while another student may claim “The Book of Genesis clearly says that the earth along with all living creatures was created in just six days, and Biblical dating has proven that the earth is only 6000 years old.” Finally a third student interjects with the remark “maybe the Bible really is just a book, and besides, science has basically already proven that evolution happened, and is continuing to happen as we speak.”
These days, most of the textbook only presents evolution theory as a fact to interpret the origin of life and the earth. More and more people get to reject creation unconsciously because they had no opportunity to compare and evaluate both worldview in same degree. I interviewed my three close acquaintances and heard a various responses from many people including my interviewees. Some of them had same belief with me, but some people had significantly different opinion with me. As a consequence of evolution theory’s monopoly in education, non-believers and Christians are unconsciously influenced by this secular worldview.
Monastersky, Richard. (2004). Society Disowns Paper Attacking Darwinism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 51, Iss. 5, A.16.
The following essay will discuss falsification, as discussed by Karl Popper, as well has his account of the scientific method. The idea whether any scientific theory can truly be falsified will also be approached by looking at the problems presented by Popper’s theory of falsification, and the impact this has on the scientific method and science as a whole.
Much to the dismay of the Church, two astronomers Galileo and Kepler had the audacity to challenge the authorities by suggesting that the sun-not the earth-was at the center of the universe. The church had a stronghold on the way the spiritual and physical world worked, so these discoveries only added to the Church’s resistance to their aims. Their discoveries came only after Kepler and Galileo began to question ancient theories about how the world functioned. These ancient truths were widely held but were inconsistent with the new observations that they had made. Kepler had discovered the laws of planetary motion which suggested that the planet would move in elliptical orbits, while Galileo followed with his discovery of the principle of inertia. Galileo concluded his finding b...