Science solves all the problems about where we come from Essay Example for Free

Science solves all the problems about where we come from Essay Science, it is arguable, has opened the eyes of humanity and rid us the ignorance that we once lived each and every day of our lives in. it has helped us to come to scientifically sound and empirically based theories that are now universally accepted. One such example of a theory that empirically seems to prove scientifically, rather than religiously, where humanity came from is the theory of Evolution. This seemed to lead many people to accept the above statement. This is because it proved that there was a natural explanation of the existence of humanity, rather than the supernatural biblical account that was so popular in the Victorian Age. Charles Darwin, the mind behind the theory, would certainly agree with the statement as he seemed to have done the impossible: prove scientifically that God did very little, if anything, to create humanity itself. Instead of being created on the sixth day of Gods impossible creation, we evolved through the very slow and very natural process of natural selection. This was added to the undeniable evidence of fossils that were being found in layers of the rocks of the earth that was found due to the very new and promising science of Geology: fossils of animals that do not exist and that have no place or mention in the Genesis account of creation. Fundamentalist Christians had feeble replies to these findings, showing the limits to which their faith was being tested. Darwins theory is also, now, widely accepted by nearly all scientists and many theists as being the truth of the origins of humanity through a purely scientific method of research. A philosopher who whole-heartedly supported Darwins theory with no room for doubt was Richard Dawkins. In his book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he claims that although almost 40% of Americans who dont believe in evolution, believe that it was created in the last 10,000 years or so, as it is stated in the Bible. He feels that if only this 40% was exposed to the evidence for evolution, then they couldnt possible believe this. Although some people would argue that evolution seems almost incapable to create humanity in such a short time span, Dawkins claims that dogs and cabbages and pigs and cows have all been changed in huge ways in a very short time, maybe a couple of centuries, a couple of millennia, in a his new book. The then goes on to muse that the earth has been in existence for hundreds of millennia, and this time frame gives us a great deal of time for evolution to take place and transform single-celled amoeba into fully functional human beings. Dawkins also states that although fossils are a very persuasive method of proving that evolution happened, its not as important as other findings. These include things such as the molecular comparisons of animals, radioactive dating and also the geographical distribution of animals. Dawkins thoroughly believes that if we assume evolution to be true, then everything we see in the world is evidence for it. Everything in the world is how it should be if evolution is true. Through this, Dawkins believes that science can, solve the problems about where we come from and, also, any other problems we may be encountered with. However, someone who would strongly disagree with Darwin, and through him, Dawkins, is Samuel Wilberforce. He was a bishop of Oxford and also led the attack against Darwins theory, six months after he published it. He claimed, in an article in the Quarterly Review, that the theory of evolution showed a tendency to limit Gods glory in creation. Wilberforce felt that humans have superior reasoning to all other animals: we are able to reason what is best out of a situation, as opposed to simply acting on instinct and impulse with a complete disregard for the consequences. If evolution is correct and our reasoning was to have stemmed from it, then all animals, by now, should have developed the ability to reason and ignore powerful instincts that deprive them of the ability to be civilised. However, we are the only animals to have developed this skill and other animals, even now, have shown no sign of developing the same, or a similar, skill. With this in mind, Wilberforce felt that if evolution is correct, then it does not even come close to explaining our ability to reason, or even the emotions of humans and animals. However, in response to this, Robert Wright feels that post-Darwin Darwinists have solved this issue. Feelings such as lust and hunger have been passed down through evolution as those who eat more are more likely to survive and those who have sex more are more likely to pass on their characteristics in their genes. Even favour of high status, he claims, can be pin-pointed to evolution: humans are socially competitive as high social status brings improved access to mates, so genes that fuel the pursuit of status fare well. He also feels that even gossiping can be traced through back to evolution. Genes inclining us to lower the social status of rivals by spreading unflattering gossip or harsh moral appraisals would be favoured by natural selection. A chemical has even been found that has been implicated with maternal bonding, romantic bonding and the trust that undergoes friendship. Using all of this evidence, Wright feels that not only can science solve the problems as to where humanity comes from, it can also go a few steps further to explain why humans act the way they do, not only at their unconscious, base instincts, but is also at a conscious, public level. Someone who vehemently opposes the statement above is Henry Morris, although he has a different viewpoint to Wilberforce. Henry Morris is a strict Creationist (one who believes in the exact account of the creation story, as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2). In his book, Biblical Creationism, Morris denies the idea of evolution, and even the compromise that some people has reached that the word days as stated in the Bible simply means eras or long periods of time. In Biblical Creationism, he states that the Bible taught clearly that all things were made by God in a six-day week of natural days. There was no room for evolution of the long geological periods of time. Morris, using the original, Hebrew version of the Bible, deduced that the word used in Genesis 1 for day was a word that always means a 24-hour period. The word used for era, he stated, is a completely different one. There should be no uncertainty whatever that God intended the account to say that the creation of all things had taken place in six literal days. Therefore, Morris would feel that science, in no way, can prove everything and solve all the problems about where we come from. Instead of using science to question ideas that the Bible gives, science should be judged against the Bible as to whether it is correct or not. This is because the Bible is, overall, the word of God, so it must stand tall above all other forms of proof that claim they know the truth of all things about humanity. God can never be mistaken as God is completely perfect, and, therefore, the Bible, Genesis included, is correct, right the way until the end. In reference to the fossils found by geologists, who would also claim have no place or mention in the creation story, Morris would beg to differ. He feels that he has found passages in the Bible that seem to refer to a diplodocus (a large, four-legged, long necked animal with a long whip-like tail) and a plesiosaurs (animals which had a broad body, four paddle-shaped flipper limbs and a short tail) in the form of the Behemoth and the Tannin which were both used to describe monsters in the Bible. A very thorough description of the Behemoth is given in Job 40: Look at the behemoth which I made along with you and which feeds like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! Morris not only seems to have an explanation for the apparent lack of mention of dinosaurs, but also can pinpoint their time in creation: even animals that have since become extinct such as dinosaurs were made on the fifth and sixth days of the creation week. Morris feels that science cannot possibly have solutions to the origins of humanity as the answers to everything that we can ever question have already been given to us in the perfect, flawless form of the Bible. There is also a view to the above statement not by an atheistic philosopher or scientist, but a theist, attempting to reconcile religion with science. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin felt that although science and religion seemed very much opposing on the surface, fundamentalists on each side tended to draw artificial battle lines about it in a very complex field. He felt that it was simple to reconcile the two if you only rearranged the idea of Gods purpose, as perceived by humanity. He also felt that evolution and an expanding universe made no real difference to Gods creation. Although Teilhards ideas werent very popular, he found a way to effectively disagree and agree with a statement by claiming the ideas of one field could enhance the understanding in both. Science can be used to solve all problems about where we come from, but it cannot do this without the help of religion. Another theist who supported the same views as Teilhard is John Polkinghorne. He felt that the scientific explanation of the world raises more questions than it seems to solve. For example, how could the world have created itself, if it was random, so perfectly and with such precision that if it was created with any less or more energy, the universe would have ceased to exist very shortly after its beginning? Although science seems to give answers and explain very well how things were created the way they did, it doesnt explain how they were created against the overwhelming odds, if it were due to random chance. The chance of the existence of humanity through the Big Band theory is so absolutely minute, Polkinghorne sees it as impossible. He, therefore, plays a major role in analysing the Anthropic Principle which states his exact beliefs. For Polkinghorne, religion and science are completely complimentary and support each other. Therefore, he comes to the same conclusion as Teilhard about the problems of where we come from: science can explain and solve all the problems about where we come from, but cannot do so with religion. A person who also not only strongly agrees with the statement, but also attacks the creationist, and any theistic point of view, is Peter Atkins. He is very much an atheist and rejects any theistic ideas as simple ignorance of the unexplained. In the Middle Ages, when people didnt know or understand how something, they would simply use God to fill in the gaps in their knowledge out of ignorance of the truth. For example, the Bubonic Plague, which was an extremely contagious bacterium, unknown to those at the time. However, those who were alive throughout the pandemics contented themselves to using God as an explanation to the disease, when they could find no immediate causes. Atkins feels that that is what theists are doing now: finding God in the Big Bang is the last refuge of the desperate. He feels that, in accordance with this statement, science has already solved the problem of where we come from, and will ultimately solve all problems with no help from religion. In conclusion, after looking at both sides of the argument, I feel that I agree with the statement, but only in part. I feel that it can solve many problems about where we come from, using the overwhelming evidence that Darwin put forward and the evidence that Dawkins reminds us of. However, I do not feel that it can solve all the problems that are related to do with where we come from. For example, it is still unknown by science about where we come from. It is universally agreed by scientists that before the Big Bang, there was nothing: no matter, no energy, and no forces. How, then, it is entirely reasonable to question, did the Big Bang come about? It is reasonable, therefore, by theists such as myself, to assume that there was a superior and intelligent designer must have caused the Big Bang into existence. Without the Big Bang, humanity would never have come into being. But even if the Big Bang would have being by some external, omnipotent force, it would have been highly unlikely that the Universe would have sustained itself without a sustainer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the scientific concept of entropy, states that in any natural process there exists an inherent tendency towards the dissipation of useful energy. This basically means that when left alone, order tends to revert back to chaos. If this were so then why isnt the world full of chaos, but order instead? Why does evolution lead to progression and not regression? I feel that science can explain the processes by which the universe and humanity came into being, but I dont think that it can thoroughly explain, using only natural and empirical evidence, how and, more importantly, why these processes came into being. Its all well saying that the Big Bang just happened, but to me, I feel that if the whole Universe was just an accident with no intent or purpose, then none of humanity really has a reason or purpose for living, other than being the result of an accident. Or, perhaps, the universe is just brute fact as Bertrand Russell stated, and we just have to accept this. Nevertheless, although I feel that people can have different views on the world, for me, the universe cannot go without explanation as to why it exists.

The Role of Gender in Art Essay -- feminist art

Introduction â€Å"’Gender’ is defined here as the cultural construction of femininity and masculinity, as opposed to the biological sex (male or female) which we are born with. Although feminist theory in its various forms does not offer any single explanation of the differences between men and women, most feminists would reject the idea that male and female characteristics can be found exclusively in any fixed biological attributes. Although some feminists are more concerned than others with tracing of masculine and feminine characteristics to their essential biological roots †¦ (essentialists), most feminists from a wide range of positions have contributed to the argument about the relative importance of social, cultural and psychic forces in the construction of identity as either feminine or masculine.†1 This essay will initially address how art history has been discussed by feminist historians in the latter part of the twentieth century. It will then discuss two pairs of mutually contemporary works of art whilst attempting to introduce concepts into the discussion of the works themselves, in order to point to differences or similarities in technique, form and style, and ways to approach an analysis of the work. Finally a conclusion will be drawn on the importance of the role of gender arising from the discourse. Gender and the role of gender is now a major part of the paradigm of the historiographical study of art. Since the 1970s feminist art historians have challenged the extant tenets of art history and have explored radical approaches to gender in art. It is important to note that art historians have formed a crucial part of the wider debate concerning feminism. Linda Nochlin`s essay ‘Why Have There Been No Great Wome... ...erasure from the history. The work is chronological in sequence, which according to Chicago traces the social origins and decline of matriarchy, it`s replacement by patriarchy, the institutionalisation of male oppression and of women`s response to it. â€Å"The Dinner Party is both clumsy and pathbreaking†¦ The Dinner Party is right on time. It comes in the wake of modernism, in loud colours and emotional, high-pitched tone; it rides on the wave of feminist study and insight; it takes seriously both the truths and excesses of female consciousness; it fills a large room; it engaged some 400 (sic) workers in something bigger than anyone; it cannot be ignored and it should not go away.†

Pricing Strategy of Soft Drinks Today Essay

We will basically focus on the pricing strategies adopted by these two affluence companies, how the change in the strategy of one of them reflects in the strategy of the other. {text:bookmark-start} Entry barriers in soft drink Market: {text:bookmark-end} The several factors that make it very difficult for the competition to enter the soft drink market include: Network Bottling: Both Coke and PepsiCo have franchisee agreements with their existing bottler’s who have rights in a certain geographic area in perpetuity. These agreements prohibit bottler’s from taking on new competing brands for similar products. Also with the recent consolidation among the bottler’s and the backward integration with both Coke and Pepsi buying significant percent of bottling companies, it is very difficult for a firm entering to find bottler’s willing to distribute their product. The other approach to try and build their bottling plants would be very capital-intensive effort with new efficient plant capital requirements in 2009 being more than $500 million. The advertising and marketing spend in the industry is very high by Coke, Pepsi and their bottler’s. This makes it extremely difficult for an entrant to compete with the incumbents and gain any visibility. Coke and Pepsi have a long history of heavy advertising and this has earned them huge amount of brand equity and loyal customer’s all over the world. This makes it virtually impossible for a new entrant to match this scale in this market place. Retailer Shelf Space (Retail Distribution): Retailers enjoy significant margins of 15-20% on these soft drinks for the shelf space they offer. These margins are quite significant for their bottom-line. This makes it tough for the new entrants to convince retailers to carry/substitute their new products for Coke and Pepsi. To enter into a market with entrenched rival behemoths like Pepsi and Coke is not easy as it could lead to price wars which affect the new comer. {text:bookmark-start} SWOT Analysis: {text:bookmark-end} Strength: Weakness: Opportunities: Threats: {text:bookmark-start} Various cola brands products Available: {text:bookmark-end} {text:bookmark-start} Pricing Strategy: {text:bookmark-end} {text:bookmark-start} Coke – Price {text:bookmark-end}. {text:bookmark-start} Pepsi – Price {text:bookmark-end} {text:bookmark-start} Pricing strategy for Buyer and Suppliers: {text:bookmark-end} Suppliers: The soft drink industry have a negotiating advantage from its suppliers as most of the raw materials needed to produce concentrate are basic commodities like Color, flavor, caffeine or additives, sugar, packaging. The producers of these products have no power over the pricing hence the suppliers in this industry are weak. This makes the soft drink industry a cheap input industry which helps in increasing their gross margin. Buyers: The major channels for the Soft Drink industry are food stores, Fast food fountain, vending, convenience stores and others in the order of market share. The profitability in each of these segments clearly illustrate the buyer power and how different buyers pay different prices based on their power to negotiate. These buyers in this segment are somewhat consolidated with several chain stores and few local supermarkets, since they offer premium shelf space they command lower prices, the net operating profit before tax (NOPBT) for concentrate producer’s is high. This segment of buyer’s is extremely fragmented and hence has to pay higher prices. This segment of buyer’s are the least profitable because of their large amount of purchases they make, it allows them to have freedom to negotiate. Coke and Pepsi primarily consider this segment â€Å"Paid Sampling† with low margins. NOPBT in this segment is very low. Vending: This channel serves the customer’s directly with absolutely no power with the buyer. {text:bookmark-start} Effect of competition and Price War on Industry profits: {text:bookmark-end} In the early 1990’s Coke and Pepsi employed low price strategy in the supermarket channel in order to compete with store brands. Coke and Pepsi however in the late 90’s decided to abandon the price war, which was not doing industry any good by raising the prices. Coke was more successful internationally compared to Pepsi due to its early lead as Pepsi had failed to concentrate on its international business after the world war and prior to the 70’s. Pepsi however sought to correct this mistake by entering emerging markets where it was not at a competitive disadvantage with respect to Coke as it failed to make any heady way in the European market. {text:bookmark-start} Pricing Strategy used for market capitalization: {text:bookmark-end} Price is a very important part of the marketing mix as it can affect both the supply and demand for soft drinks. The price of soft drinks products is one of the most important factors in a customer‘s decision to buy. Price will often be the difference that will push a customer to buy our product over another, as long as most things are fairly similar. For this reason pricing policies need to be designed with consumers and external influences in mind, in order to effectively achieve a stable balance between sales and covering the production costs. Till the late 1980s, the standard SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) for a soft drink was 200 ml. In 1989, when Indian government opened the market to multinationals, Pepsi was the first to come in. Thums Up (a product of Parle) went up against the international giant for an intense onslaught with neither side giving any quarter. Around 1989, Pepsi launched 250 ml bottles and the market also moved on to the new standard size. When Coke re-entered India in 1993, it introduced 300 ml as the smallest bottle size. Soon, Pepsi followed and 300 ml became the standard. With large population and low consumption the rural market represented a significant opportunity for penetration and market dominance. Competitive pricing was the key. Then the capacity went from 250ml to 300ml, aptly named MahaCola. This nickname gained popularity in smaller towns where people would ask for â€Å"Maha Cola† instead of Thums Up. The consumers were divided where some felt the Pepsi’s mild taste was rather bland. In 1993 Coca-Cola re-entered India after prolonged absences from 1977 to 1993. But Coca-Cola’s entry made things even more complicated and the fight became a three-way battle. That same year, in a move that baffled many, Parle sold out to Coke for a meager US$ 60 million (considering the market share it had). Further, as the demand changed, both Pepsi and Coke introduced 1 liter returnable glass bottles. RGB 250ml 1989 Rs 8 RGB 300ml 1993 Rs 9 RGB 300ml, 1994 Rs 9 RGB 300ml 1996 Rs 11 Pet bottles 1 liter, 2 liter 1996 Rs 25, Rs 42 RGB 300ml 1997 Rs 7 Pet bottles 1 liter, 2 liter 1997 Rs 20, Rs 38 RGB 200ml, 300ml (negligible) 2002-03 Rs 5, Rs 11 Pet bottles 500ml, 1 liter, 1. 5 liter, 2 liter 2002-03 Rs 18, Rs 25 Can 330ml 2002-03 Rs 35. {text:bookmark-start} Penetration pricing: {text:bookmark-end} In the past (in 2002-03), Coke had already targeted rural consumers by bringing down the entry price (Rs 5 a bottle) for its product. Now, it has stepped up distribution of its 200-ml (priced at Rs 7 and Rs 8) returnable-glass-bottles. To surmount the penetration policy of Coke, Pepsi too came up with the same Price penetration policy by launching products like â€Å"Chota Pepsi† with the price of Rs 5 to challenge the coke product. The small size was basically used to target rural market to make new customer habitual to it. {text:bookmark-start} Conclusion: {text:bookmark-end}.

New York V. Sullivan Essay - 1710 Words

New York v. Sullivan (1964) involves the petitioner the New York Times Company and the respondent City Commissoner L.B. Sullivan and was decided on March 9th 1964. According to Oyez, a brief history the case was â€Å"decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan (1964), this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King s efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Previously, according to the Alabama Encyclopedia, à ¢â‚¬Å"Under Alabama law, belief in the truth of statements did not excuse libel, although it could be used as a factor when determining punitive damages. During the trial in Montgomery s circuit court, six local residents testified that they believed the statements in paragraphs three and six referred to Sullivan personally. Therefore as a remedy sought in the lower courts, the jury awarded Sullivan $500,000, which was affirmed by the State Supreme Court after an appeal by the NYT, The New York TimesShow MoreRelatedDefamation Law: Libel And Slander Essay1062 Words   |  5 Pagesfor the purpose of defaming a living person. Now there have been hundreds of cases of libel in the United States. Some significant court cases are ones like New York Times Co. v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This case was about the alleged libel of Montgomery, Alabama. Commissioner L. B. Sullivan in the New York Times Magazine. The New York times supported Martin Luther King Jr. and his innocence in an alle ged perjusry charge, Dr. king was accused of lieing under oath. This court case was one ofRead MoreThe Civil Rights Movement : The New York Times Newspaper Company1678 Words   |  7 PagesIn 1960 the Civil Rights Movement was beginning to gain a lot strength. Many civil rights leaders put a full-page ad in the New York Times newspaper company. The ad was to raise money to help civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr. There were sixty popular Americans who signed it. The ad put in the paper was describing how â€Å" an unprecedented wave of terror† was rising with police actions against peaceful demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. The ad was mostly accurate, but a few ofRead MoreEssay on The First Amendment and its Impact on Media1134 Words   |  5 Pages which still sets precedent in todays cases, is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is the leading case on the question of defamation liability for media defendants. The case, heard before the Supreme Court, declared that public officials and figures could not recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove both that the statement was false, and was made with actual malice. This decision prevents the news media from reporting on false or slanderous storiesRead MoreSpeech On The First Amendment1786 Words   |  8 Pagesneither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy. Providing context is also crucial in not misrepresenting or oversimplifying when promoting, previewing or summarizing a story. One must gather, correct and update factual information throughout the life of a news story. When making promises, one mus t be cautious and keep the promises that they make. Sources must be identified clearly because the public is entitled to as much information as possible when judging the reliability and motivations of sources. OneRead MoreI Believe that Piracy Should Be Legal558 Words   |  2 Pagesmeans that the person publishing the information has to know that the information being published is false or is publishing information regardless of whether it is true or false. This rule was established following the landmark 1964 lawsuit New York Times v. Sullivan, which ruled that public officials needed to prove actual malice in order to recover damages for libel. A relatively current case of a public figure that could make sense to apply this rule could be Obama citizenship denial, which is a phenomenonRead MoreHow the Earl Warren Court Liberalized America Essay842 Words   |  4 Pagesways. One way the Warren Court liberalized America, is through the court cases of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), E scobedo v. Illinois (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), where these court cases helped define Due Process and the rights of defendants. Another way the Warren Court liberalized America, is through the cases of Tinker v. Des Moines ISD (1969), Engle v. Vitale (1962), and New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), where the Supreme Court sought to expand the scope of application of the First AmendmentRead MoreWalter Sobchak Should Be Charged Under New York Penal Law 125.25 Essay1455 Words   |  6 PagesSobchak should be charged under New York Penal Law 125.25, which is murder in the second degree. Upon seeing is wife Meara Ramos, in bed with James P. Sullivan, Sobchak makes the conscious decision to pick up his firearm, a deadly weapon and shoot it at Sullivan which reveals his intent to cause the death of another person. Unfortunately, the bullet ultimately travels outside, hitting and killing Edward Vedder; an innocent bystander. In his attempt to murder Sullivan; Sobchak, causes the d eath of aRead MoreCase Analysis : Mr. Fields845 Words   |  4 PagesFirst Amendment rights. First we have the case of The New York Times who printed an advertisement where it clearly was accusing the Alabama police department of misdeeds. The police commissioner, L. B. Sullivan sued New York Times and their writers for the advertisement. The case became to be known as the New York Times Co. V. Sullivan (1963) case. After the case went to court, the judgement in favor of Sullivan had to be overturned, and New York Times could not be convicted of libel. What this demonstrateRead MoreThe Warren Court And The Criminal Justice Revolution Of The 1960 S1605 Words   |  7 PagesSupreme Court Justice Earl Warren who is famously known for cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Fay v. Noia, Mapp v. Ohio, Sherbert v. Verner, and New York Times v. Sullivan. â€Å"Earl Warren s name has become the shorthand for a jurisprudential shift from state toward federal authority; the Warren Cour t offered an expansive understanding of the role federal courts could play in enabling access for a host of new claimants seeking an array of rights† (Resnik 2012). Earl Warren’s court and jurisprudenceRead MoreFreedom of Speech in the School System: Rights for Dean and Students702 Words   |  3 Pagesto require the clearance of every editorial. Additionally, the dean of students has warned against a planned rally to protest lavish spending. This protest is not school-sponsored speech, but student speech that occurs in school premises. In Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Sch. Dist., the Supreme Court ruled that speech must be tolerated unless it â€Å"substantially interfere[s] with the work of the school or impinge[s] upon the rights of other students.† Here the question is on the justification of the school