Nothing Gold Can Stay Essay Example for Free

Nothing Gold Can Stay Essay The poem â€Å"Nothing Gold Can Stay,† by Robert Frost, uses a abcb rhyme scheme to cleverly explain natures downfall, due to gold, in the world. The author begins by showing that nature’s true color is green, however, due to man’s greed they only see gold. Being that nature supplied the earth with gold, man should respect it and give back. Instead the author depicts that nature is stripped of her importance and sad therefore the dawn goes down to day meaning instead of the weather staying beautiful, like it does in the morning, it turns to the hot, muggy afternoon. On the last line the author says, â€Å"Nothing gold can stay† (914), because mans inability to let go of greed is destroying our planet. The author also uses figurative language to reveal the poem’s meaning. In the beginning of the poem he personifies nature into a female so that the audience better understands natures pain and suffering due to humans greedy ways. Also, he uses imagery to paint the picture of the garden of Eden sinking to grief meaning that nature is in duress and even the first garden known to man is on the verge of destruction unless we change our ways. Lastly the author uses a metaphor comparing green to gold by saying â€Å"Natures first green is gold† (914), explaining that green is the symbol of life and prosperity. For example money is green and when nature is described green typically comes to mind. But he says gold is the first green because all humans care about is gold and as a result they are giving it greater importance than nature, our source of life.

My First Kiss :: Personal Narrative

My First Kiss â€Å"Kissing a watermelon? No, I’ve never been THAT desperate.† My sister Amy went on to tell me about her friend who dared to do such a feat. â€Å"Did it help?† I asked. â€Å"We don’t know! She hasn’t kissed a real guy yet!† Amy and I burst into a fit of giggles, and I realized how being in the company of my younger sister regressed me to her awkward, girlish high school age. I had forgotten, until this bedside 2:00 a.m. conversation, how I used to be obsessed with popularity and sports cars, and how I daydreamed of my first kiss. But Amy had much more â€Å"experience† than I did at her age. She and her friends had passed their adolescent initiation of first kisses—at least the kind on the lips. â€Å"In the back of the CHURCH van? With everyone watching? Where did he kiss you?† â€Å"On the LIPS!† she squealed. Amy’s excitement and anxiety about kissing ignited a rush of memories. How I used to romanticize about first kissing someone! I thought that I would be in a long flowing gown, and the handsome young man would bring me flowers, and ask to court me. Our kiss would be done on the porch, under an encouraging moon and a harmony of stars. Or maybe I would be in a MacDonalds, and the most good-looking guy I’d ever seen would come to my table, buy me a hot fudge sundae, and he give me a kiss when he walked me to my car. Ah, the kiss was exciting to think about as well. I had no idea what it would be like, but I knew it would feel wonderful. This quick pucker and follow-through would be my initiation into womanhood, somehow setting me apart from other girls who could barely fill a bra or who, as rumors went, practiced kissing by mutilating fruit. A rite of passage, a first romance, yes. But my girlish head had set itself upon one quest: I would be truly in love with the young man I first

Evolution and religion Essay

â€Å" Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind †, said Albert Einstein. This essay concentrates on evolution, religion, and creationism. In the first phase these are defined, and later their relationships and controversies are discussed. A conclusive statement is made a the end. Evolution The theory of evolution by natural selection was first put forth by Charles Darwin in his book, â€Å" on the origin of species†, in 1859. In 1930’s Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis. With its enormous explanatory power, this theory provides a unifying answer to diversity of life on earth. Evolution is the change in a population’s inherited traits, from generation to generation. These traits are encoded as genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations and other random changes in the genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in difference between organisms. Evolution occurs when these different traits become more common or rare in a population. This happens through genetic drift and is based on the reproductive value of traits through natural selection. Under natural selection organisms with traits that help them to survive and reproduce tend to have more off springs. In doing so, they will pass more copies of inheritable beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer. Over time, this process can result in varied adaptations to environmental conditions. As differences in populations accumulate, new species may evolve. All known species have descended from a single ancestral gene pool through this process of gradual divergence. According to theory of evolution, life on Earth started its journey over 3 billion years ago, when oxygenic photosynthesis emerged, which made development of aerobic cellular respiration possible around 2 billion years ago. In the last billion years, multi cellular plants and animals began to appear in oceans. The Cambrian explosion originated all major body plans of modern animals. About 450 million years ago ( mya) plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by anthropods and other animals. Amphibians first appeared around 300 mya, followed by reptiles and mammals around 200 mya, and birds around 100 mya. The human genus arose around 2 mya, while the earliest modern humans lived 200 thousand years ago. This theory states that all organisms on Earth have descended from a common ancestral gene pool. Evidence for this is inferred from traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin’s days, this statement was based on visible observation of morphologic similarities. Today genetic science has proved this. For example, every living cell makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material and uses the same 20 amino acids as the building blocks of proteins. The universality of these traits suggest common ancestry. The roots of evolution theory were laid by Charles Darwin in 1858. He could not propose any working mechanism for inheritance. This was provided by Mendel in 1865, who proved that distinct traits were inherited in a well defined and predictable manner.( Evolution ) Religion A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by human community involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals, and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, mythology, personal faith and mystic experience. It is also described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or of the highest truth. Moral codes, values, practices, institutions, traditions, rituals and scriptures are often associated with the core belief. Religion is also described as a â€Å" way of life †. There are number of models in which religions come into being and develop. Broadly these models fall into three categories: 1) Those which see religion as social construction 2) Those which see religion as progressing towards higher, objective truth 3) Those which see particular religion as absolute truth Creationism Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the Universe were entirely created by a supernatural deity, God. His existence is presupposed. The term creationism is often used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the book ‘ Genesis’, for Christians and the Jews, and in ‘Qur’an’, for Muslims. In Christian context, many creationists adopt a literal interpretation of the Biblical narratives and say that Bible provides a factual account, given from the perspective of only one who was there to witness it at that time: God. Almost all churches teach that God created the Cosmos. Biblical creationism places knowledge of God central in pursuit of knowledge of anything, as everything comes from God. It says nothing about the mechanisms by which anything was created. No systematic or scientific inquiry was made into the validity of the text. Christian creationism id categorized into many types. These are : – Young Earth creationism. This is inclusive of modern geocentrism, Omphalos hypothesis, and creation science. – Old Earth creationism. This includes Gap creationism, Day-age creationism, and progressive creationism. Theistic creationism Neo-creationism, which includes intelligent design. While Christian and Islamic creationism are almost similar. Hindu creationism believes that all creatures including humans undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction. The Hindu view of the cosmos is cyclic. ( Creationism ) Evolution and religion Religion is based on beliefs and science is based on proofs and evidences. The theory of evolution is backed by scientific proofs and is considered science beyond any doubt. The relationship between religion and science takes many forms as both are extremely broad. They employ different methods and address different questions. The scientific method adopts an objective approach to measure, calculate, and describe the natural, physical, material universe. Religious methods are more subjective, relying on notions about authority, intuition, belief in supernatural, individual experience and ‘reasoned’ observations about life or the universe, or a combination of all these. Science attempts to answer the ‘how’ and ‘ what’ of observable and verifiable phenomena, religion attempts to answer the ‘why’ question of values, morals, and spirituality. Both employ different methods to find answers to different questions. ( Relationship). A noteworthy dissimilarity between the two is that religion has been existing since ages, whereas science is too young. The earliest civilizations of human species have been worshipping a supernatural force, which was later named as ‘God ’ by Christianity and ‘ Allah’ by Islam. The two most popular religions of today’s world may be a few thousand years old only, but the concept of religion is as old as man himself. In opposition, the modern day science is hardly a few hundred years old. All the modern scientific theories and discoveries on which the world is thriving today, occurred after the renaissance era in Europe. There are two distinct views regarding relationship between religion and science. One known as ‘non-overlapping magisteria’, described by Stephen Jay Gould states that both deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so when each stays within its own domain, they can co-exist peacefully. The other view known as conflict thesis, which is not to the liking of historians but retains popular appeal, holds that science and religion inevitably compete for authority over the nature of reality. Here, religion has been gradually losing a war with science as scientific expressions become more powerful, acceptable and widespread. ( Relationship ) Evolution theory gives answers to various how life evolved and developed on this earth. Its domain is limited to explaining and proving the existence of a common genetic pool from which different species came into existence. On the other hand the combined domain of all the religions of this world is almost infinite. Answers to questions which science cannot answer are given by religion. The contents of theory of evolution are limited whereas that of all the religions combined are limitless. For example, evolution theory cannot give a satisfactory answer to the origins of universe or the starting point of life. It just assumes that there was a pool of genes from which all forms of life have descended. Religion explains that there exists a supernatural force, which is not seen by anyone and the existence of which can never be proved in a scientific way, which created the ‘ Big Bang’. Science assumes that this was the beginning of universe. Religion does have answers to questions which cannot be answered by any scientific theory. The theory of evolution has no clue about soul, which is globally accepted as a part of our body, while all religions of this world have clear answers to any question regarding soul. All scientific knowledge, if summed up, is like a small drop in an ocean of summed up knowledge offered by all religions on this world. If religion is based on assumptions, even science has assumptions at its base. Evolution is limited to various aspects of life on this planet. For any religion this is a very small chapter in a huge book. Religion not only touches the various aspects of how life developed, but numerous other topics also. As mentioned above, religion is a ‘ way of life’ and hence its perceptions are much broader than the evolution theory, touching the living and the non-living also. Conflicts between religion and evolution arise when religious fundamentalists refuse to accept the scientifically proved facts. This is true for Christian fundamentalists, especially in the United States. They are simply not ready to deviate from the Biblical teachings that God is the creator of all things and He runs the show. They tend to miss one important point that Darwin has never touched the debate on ‘why’ evolution occurred. He has simply found answers to ‘how’ it happened. The authority of God, or for that matter teaching of any religion is never questioned by the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact, there are ample proofs available which convince us that the scientific community also accepts and favors the theory of a super natural power. Writes Lovgren Stefan in his article in National Geographic news, â€Å" Some of history’s greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced that there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say that there is no conflict between their faith and their work†. He further writes, â€Å" the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Yet, in 2001 Gallup poll, 45% of USA adults said that they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans. Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists and theologians maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evaluation as a method to create the world†. The article further argues , â€Å" there is no way to explain religious faith scientifically. It is hard to envision a test that can tell the difference between the universe created by God, and the one that appeared without God. But why did the universe exist at all ? This is a question which religion is particularly good at answering†. The same article has a report by Ted Sargent, a nano-technology expert at the University of Toronto. â€Å" Even as science progresses in its reductionist fashion moving towards deeper, simpler and more elegant understanding of particles and forces, there will still remain a ‘ why’, at the end. Why are the rules the way they are ? This is where people will find God †. Stefan comments, â€Å" To many scientists, this discoveries may not be that different from religious revelations. Scientific advancements may even draw scientists closer to religion†. ( Lovgren Stefan ) Conversely, religious fundamentalists should also accept the fats which are proven beyond any doubt. This establishes a harmony between religion and evolution. Evolution and creationism The conflict between the believers in evolution theory and creationism is more fierce than that of evolution and religion. This is especially true in the USA where it has become a political controversy. It is a dispute about the origins of Earth, humanity, life, and the universe. The level of support for the evolution theory is overwhelming in the scientific community and the academia, while support for creation based alternatives where evolution does not take place is minimal among secular scientists. Creationists argue that scientific theories are incomplete, incorrect, and inherently flawed due to the infinite regression nature of questions of origins. They argue that if science can provide answers to ‘ what caused the Big Bang ?’ or ‘ what was the nature of first life form ?’ it is likely that answers themselves will be subject to similar kinds of regressive inquiry. They firmly believe that science cannot provide answers to such questions and that their religious discourse is much more complete and more reliable than the naturalistic description provided by science. While creationists point at the limitations of scientific investigations, they intend to point towards the existence of creator God. Skeptics criticize this as ‘God of the gaps argument’. They say that religious argumentation is reduced to a place holder for gaps in human knowledge. One more argument presented is that evolution is a theory and not a fact. This is a result of misconception about the technical meaning of ‘theory’. In common usage, ‘theory’ means hypothesis and unproven assumptions. In science it means ‘ a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena†. Exploring this issue, Stephen Jay Gould wrote, â€Å" Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact, and facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing uncertainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced that of Newton’s but apples did not suspend themselves from mid –air. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be disclosed â€Å". Karl Propper gave a new dimension to the debate, by evolving the concept of ‘falsifiability’. He claimed that testable theories are scientific but those that are untestable are not. He declares, â€Å" I have come to a conclusion that Darwinism is not testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program, a plausible framework for testable scientific theories†. Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiabilty have been offered by some scientists: Richard Dawkins and J.B.S. Haldane both pointed out that if fossil rabbits were found in the Precarribean era, a time before most similarly complex life forms had evolved â€Å" that would completely blow evolution out of water†. Creationists have criticized the scientific evidence used to support evolution as being based on faulty assumptions and unjustified jumping to conclusions. These include: – the fossil fuel record which has significant gaps that cast doubt on evolution – the emergence of new species which has not been observed directly – radiometric dating which is inaccurate due to an inappropriate reliance on assumption of uniformitarianism While creationists claim that the problems they point out represent significant ‘holes’ in evolutionary theory. Supporters of evolutionary theory respond by arguing that these gaps of knowledge do not cast doubt on the framework the theory of evolution provides, asserting that they indicate either areas where research needs to be directed or there is misunderstanding on the part of creationists. As a matter of fact scientists and subject experts of evolution, do not spend much time on refuting the charges of creationists. Many do not respond at all. They do not think it is worth it. After all, when they reply, creationists get the publicity. ( creation-evolution controversy ) Pope Benedict XVI , in a book titled â€Å" creation and evolution†, published on 11 April 2007, states that â€Å" The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science. I find it important to underline that theory of evolution implies questions that must be to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science. It is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory†. He believes that experiment in a controlled environment h as limitations, as, â€Å" We cannot have 10,000 generations into the laboratory†. He also does not endorse creationism or intelligent design. He defends ‘ theistic evolution’, a reconciliation between science and religion, already held by Catholics. He writes on evolution, as a ‘ process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor, choosing a few mutations and using low probability. This inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science- where did this rationality come from ? † to which he answers that it comes from the ‘creative reason’ of God. ( creationism – evolution controversy) Third alternative The conflict and controversy over evolution and creationism can be resolved if a third alternative is adopted. If biology had followed Pasteur’s paradigm, instead of Darwin’s, and if the theory of cosmic ancestry was prevailing today, then the mechanical theory of nature would account for the evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth. There would be no need for supernatural intervention. Cosmic ancestry is fundamentally different from both Darwinism and prevailing western religions. Both hold that life arises and evolves from simpler beginnings. Darwinism explains this with material causes, western religions with supernatural causes. In Cosmic Ancestry life neither arises nor evolves to more highly organized forms from simpler beginnings. With material causes life can descend from prior life at least as highly evolved as itself. Thus in Cosmic Ancestry, life only descends. The fact is that neither science nor religion seem interested in adopting Cosmic Ancestry as an alternative. ( Evolution versus creationism) Conclusion The theory of evolution proves how life originated and developed on this Earth. It has a scientific base in all its claims. It is a result of careful analysis of data. All over the world it has been accepted as a ‘truly scientific explanation’ on evolution of life. It does not have to do anything with any supernatural power. Religious fundamentalists, specially Christian, have evolved a movement called ‘creationism’, which asserts that the theory of evolution tends to wipe off the Biblical teachings and the faith they have in God. Till today, the highest priest of Christianity, the Pope, is busy trying to find ‘holes’ in the theory of evolution, when the whole world has accepted this theory before 150 years. The paradox is that evolution has never touched upon the aspects of God. In fact, scientists also believe in God and accept His existence. There is no legitimate base for ‘creationism’, and it reflects the sense of adamancy among the Christian fundamentalists. Theory of Cosmic Ancestry can be adopted as an option. Works- cited page 1. Evolution, wikipedia the free encyclopedia, 14 April 07, Retrieved on 15 April 07 from: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution > 2. Creationism, wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 14 April 07, Retrieved on 15 April 07 from : < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism > 3. Relationship, Relationship between Religion and science, wikipedia the free encyclopedia, 12 April 07, Retrieved on 15 April 07 from: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science > 4. Lovgren Stefan, Evolution and religion can co-exist, scientists say, National Geographic News, 18 October 2004, Retrieved on 15 April 07, from: < http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html > 5. Creation-evolution controversy, wikipedia the free encyclopedia, 13 April 07, Retrieved on 15 April 07 from: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy > 6. Evolution versus creationism, Retrieved on 16 April 07 from: < http://www.panspermia.org/ mechansm.htm >

Freedom Is A Fundamental Right Of Individual Autonomy

Freedom of expression has become one of the most valued features of a free and democratic society. Freedom of speech and expression are a set of valued rights that allow citizens to openly debate, political issues, political leaders, and government policies. Free flow of information is evidence of a healthy democracy. Therefore, freedom is a fundamental right of individual autonomy. However, it is very important to show contrast that there is a vast difference between the allowance of freedom of expression in in Canada, compared to free speech in the United States, where all forms freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. (Tarnopolsky 1983) However, under the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 2b, it states that â€Å"Everyone has the right to the following fundamental freedoms†¦ thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication.† (Canadian Charter of Rights a nd Freedoms, Section 2b) While section 2b is guaranteed to protect freedom of expression, it is subject to Section 1, which states that all Charter rights can be struck down within reasonable limits. The Oakes Test has been an important tool that has been used to determine whether the proportionality and rational of invoking Section 1 was done under a justifiable and positive measures that outweigh the negatives. In this essay I examine R v. Keegstra, R v. Zundel, R v. Whatcott, R v. Sharpe and R v. Butler. ItShow MoreRelatedThe Philosophical Conflict between Freedom and Authority1286 Words   |  5 Pagesï » ¿FREEDOM VERSUS AUTHORITY Introduction One of the most fundamental philosophical conundrums in the relationship between individual human beings and society is the inherent conceptual conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the authority of the state. Absolute freedom of the individual precludes any exercise of state authority; but some degree of state authority is necessary to ensure and protect the autonomous rights of individuals from being infringed upon by the exercise of theRead More Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) Essay examples907 Words   |  4 Pages In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court abandoned its previous doctrine for ruling upon an individual’s right to privacy. Written by Justice White, the opinion of the Court in this case focused on the morality of sodomy, particularly sodomy between homosexuals, rather than the constitutional question of privacy. The Court made substantial progress in defining the right to privacy in the preceding years, but the decision in Bowers demonstrate d that even the â€Å"highest Court in the land†Read MoreThe Issue Of Abortion And Abortion876 Words   |  4 Pagesabortion I encourage – it is the fact that a choice is being taken by an individual over a key aspect of her life and future. There’s a phrase for that: moral autonomy. What is moral autonomy? It is our right to think and speak for ourselves, to act on our consciences, to pursue what we consider to be the good life, to determine our destinies for ourselves, to be the authors of our circumstances. But we cannot only defend moral autonomy in some aspects, we have to be consistent in how we defend it. We mustRead MorePrivacy And The Right Of Privacy1540 Words   |  7 Pagesthe ability of an individual to seclude themselves or information about themselves from the individuals around them or the community they live in. Almost all countries have laws in place to protect an individual’s privacy because it is under the illusion as a fundamental human right. In this paper, I will argue laws that establish the use of contraceptives and the right to receive an abortion as a right of privacy have failed to work within society, but if the right to autonomy were created it wouldRead MoreThe Legalization Regulation Of The Sex Trade Essay849 Words   |  4 Pagescriminalization to infringe on sex worker’s fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security and b) the capacity for criminalization to prohibit sex worker’s from actively preventing harm to oneself. Philosophical support for this position will come from arguments rooted in human rights’ perspective, John Stuart Mill’s â€Å"harm principle† and arguments rooted in feminist theory. The harm principle contends â€Å"it is only justifiable to interfere with the autonomy or liberty of adults in order to preventRead MoreThe Argument Of Abortion On Abortion1692 Words   |  7 Pagesconvinced that this basis is a sufficient defense and approaches the argument by modifying a generic view on abortion. In the article, A Defense of Abortion, Thomson makes the assumption that a fetus is, in fact, a human person upon conception and has a right to life. She then claims that even if this notion is granted, it still does not follow that abortion can be recognized as the wrongful killing of a human being. Thomson bases this claim on answering the question of whether or not a pregnant womanRead MoreGoogle Vs. Google Privacy Policy1349 Words   |  6 PagesInternet companies like Google and others collect and store individual customer profile as a requirement to provide free services like search, webmail, web storage and social networking services. Official Google Privacy policy states: â€Å"When you use Google services, you trust us with your information.†. (Google) Google privacy policy is built on the opt-out requirement and they influence their customer to implicitly trust it with their personal data. Google claims in their mission statement that â€Å"Google’sRead MoreExploring Whether All Morality Should Reduce to Respecting Autonomy1377 Words   |  6 PagesKantian Ethics states that all morality can be reduced to respecting autonomy. This theory has faced criticisms as well as support. Its most plausible idea is that autonomous agents are capable of making their own decisions and even if their choices may not be the best for them, these choices should be respected. However, criticisms of this theory include concerns such as 1) respecting autonomy is not equivalent to respecting the autonomous agent, 2) the theory does not concern (or concerns veryRead MoreEssay Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism1729 Words   |  7 PagesIntroduction One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophicalRead MoreFoundations and Limits of Freedom of the Press705 Words   |  3 PagesIn â€Å"Foundations and Limits of Freedom of the Press, â€Å" Judith Lichtenberg explores the ongoing controversial argument surrounding the regulation of the press and mass media. She evaluates the ability of the press to shape our opinions and values through an examination of the interdependent relationship between freedom of speech and press. Furthermore, she notes that, while the two rights appear similar as they are both considered as forms of self-expression, it is important to differ between the two