“Evolution as Fact or theory” by Stephen Jay Gould

My analysis

            In “Evolution as fact or theory” Gould argues the great misunderstanding scientific creationists have encountered, discussing the lack of scientific understanding on terms such as fact and theory. Since fact is not an absolute certainty and theory an imperfect fact as Gould defines precisely throughout his entire writing, it is quite inevitable to comprehend how scientific creationism was engendered and how it reacted towards evolutionary theory viewing it as erroneous and furthermore enabling an assertion that evolutionist theories are solemnly a “theory” and nothing more.  Reagan’s statement clearly depicts this particular scenario “If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about theory, then what confidence can we have in it? (Reagan, par.4) To support his views Gould then argues that even though evolution is a “theory” it is one that is well supported by facts, in other words there is an abundance of evidence (evolution in this case) but the mechanisms (theory) of how it happened are subject to debate. In the following quote Gould explains why these ideas are debated; “Scientists regard debates as fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and source of excitement.” (Gould, par.8) Jay Gould then supports his thoughts by introducing the prominent factor of why science has become a major target for scientific creationists and explains what is actually occurring within the Scientific realm “Yet admist all this turnmoil no biologist has been led to doubt the fact that evolution occurred, we are debating how it happened” (Gould. Par.9) In this last quote In this article Gould introduced major perspectives that belief systems have placed on evolutionary theory, in general it enabled me to understand, and not to mention it actually answered many questions I had on the credibility of science.

            Furthermore knowing that the bible is a conjunction of 73 books written in vastly different historic time producing a historic moment at a given time, derived from Hebrew with over hundreds of translations, thus it is expected for radicals and scientific creationists to misunderstand and attack evolutionary theory by placing literal interpretations from the bible, rather than actually understanding the vast use of metaphor and symbolism that lies within the bible itself. Belief systems and Science are two vastly different ideas; one emphasizes on answers without concerning actual facts but relies solemnly in  faith, the other questions testable data and relies on facts(empirical evidence), so you tell me how can these two be intertwined? Belief systems can and are at times intertwined with science but we need to comprehend that attacking a realm in which one lack’s sufficient knowledge can result as a great catalyst in causing great issues. In my opinion science and belief systems are placed in order of relating and producing a harmonious experience on life rather than questioning each other. Like Gould states; “Science is-and how else can I say it?” (Gould. Par.10). The same should be applied to belief systems, in other words Belief systems just are as well. If one emphasizes in attacking evolutionary theorists or counterattacking scientific creationists (belief systems) both are falling in the same ignorance they are trying to evade.

Gould also discusses the model used by Scientific creationists as a grouping of ideas that cannot be disproved therefore it is proved to be a false science; so if this is the case then how can this be argued? Therefore if belief systems rely on manifestations and Science in facts, then scientific creationism has no place in science given that it goes against all the beliefs and regulations that lie within science. “scientific creationism is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified.” (Gould, par.12) In conclusion in this particular passage I would have to agree with Gould, scientific creationism is a false science or in other words is not a science, since these ideas can be disproved but are usually times refuted by belief.         

In my opinion in order of creating a greater society we should all strive for a holistic and comprehensive view towards culture, science, and spirituality; in evolutionary theory facts have led to believe that life on earth had one origin therefore all living things have a common ancestor; in Belief systems especially those who lay emphasis on the bible believe that we are all created by one prominent deity made in his perfection therefore if this is the case there is one interconnection between both of these realms; once we begin to comprehend this as a whole we should try to embrace our beliefs and create a harmonious stance toward each other rather than insulting one another.

Overall I learned:

1. Stephen Jay Gould set the blueprint and proposed the punctuated equilibrium model. Over the Darwin gradualism model setting that evolution moves gradually and is interrupted by new species in evolution. 

2. Gould proposed that speciation is created under the process of macroevolution rather than microevolution.

3. The 3 major arguments of science and the precise definitions in science of fact theory, scientific creationism and the effects of such ideologies over Stephen Jay Gould’s work.

" The War Made easy" A MUST SEE FILM FOR EVERY AMERICAN

In the film “The war made easy” the director emphasizes on addressing the media’s prominent role in executing foreign policy through the relationship between media coverage and Top U.S officials. Furthermore explaining through a grand variety of sources how such democratic rhetoric has managed to enforce our societies general perceptions of war. As WWI came to an end U.S government officials sought for successful strategies justifying war by withholding information from the public in order of protecting their diplomatic alliances. In subsequent all this use of media enabled the people to not only encourage a war agenda but believe the mere illusion that they played no major role in “formulating” foreign policy, so in other words the president was no longer a channel of administrative policies but a prominent figure in determining what is best for the people.

            Moreover, What I found very interesting was how the director successfully compares the dynamic between each war, the correlation between the media’s role of retaining a constant storyline in order of maintaining encouragement for the war, which in turn leaving society as a subject submitted to propaganda. Although the documentary sets time in the Vietnam War we need to comprehend that just as the documentary conveys, we still remain exposed to similar propagandistic strategies and political jargon, As years pass by we have become quite numb to the idea of even questioning if what is seen on TV is true. The segment portraying the paradox of war was quite interesting as well since it exposes a terminology that is constantly aggressively conveyed as the American theology, and that is “to spread freedom and democracy”

            Although through history it is quite evident that none of the U.S interventions are based on such rhetoric, conversely most of these particular phrases are used in order of increasing economical profit or protecting U.S political interests and doing no other but placing a veil on their people by retaining the idea of selflessness and serving others. War is not only portrayed as an act of kindness and patriotism but it has been generated to become an embodiment of morality, and this in particular is what I find quite disturbing. 

I don’t know about you but I find the leftist/ liberal individuals much more ethical than the so-called “objective” pro-war individuals. Furthermore, how can Arnett be portrayed as unpatriotic when he was actually comparing both sides and enabling to bring upon objective news?, Or Donahue’s attempts of challenging the U.S officials by questioning the perpetual promotion of war seen as unpatriotic? Shouldn’t it be the other war around?  In conclusion this film was an eye-opener on a variety of subjects but specifically on the U.S government political agenda.

"Outfoxed"

In the Film Outfoxed we encounter a grand variety of information explaining what the media really is, specifically focusing on Fox channel’s prominent role. Furthermore it depicts Rupert Murdoch as a biased politician whom uses the media sources as a means of embedding his Republican ideologies in order of persuading his political agenda. By portraying the subjectivity by using opinions based on reliable sources that exist within the core of Fox news, we can infer that the director is turning the veil that exists within the audience and Fox; with facts and evidence he successfully enables us to comprehend the compositional techniques that are repeatedly used in order of persuading the audience into propagandistic journalism. What I found interesting was that the director also implemented marketing maneuvers that are used, for example music specialists explain how music tunes can bring a sense of urgency which in turn subconsciously delivers a reaction.          

  furthermore they explain how such techniques are now being used in matters that are quite unimportant or better yet irrelevant news. But why would they do this? In my opinion it is quite clear that these techniques are being used in order of distracting viewers from important political issues and clearly a technique which leaves the viewer believing assumptions, so in other words the viewer is not deciding on what information to take but rather being subject to biased opinion. Not only are concepts and ideas biased but also at times facts are fabricated in order of projecting and representing an idea. The “some people say” is a perfect example of how anchors represent ideologies without professional sourcing in order of conveying an idea that has no credible facts. Although nationwide Fox is portrayed as an objective news channel this reality is far from being true, Bob Mchesney’s quotation clearly depicts our position as an audience and explains why such techniques have been quite successful” Is not that people think that they are being subject to propaganda, if people don’t think that, they aren’t looking for that, they are much easier to propagandize, and that’s the genius of our media system” Outfoxed (2004). In the preceding quotation Mchesney states and successfully compares the Soviet Unions authoritarian regimen to the corporate controlled media.

             

In subsequent this corporate control over the media is not only a major political matter but it has lead the media industry into the hands of a few corporate elites who not only control the influx of information but determine what we see on TV, read on the newspaper, internet, and magazines. As a society it is time to comprehend that nothing of what we see on Fox or a vast amount of other Channels is truly objective or true, since most of the information is subjective. Knowing that the media is controlled by a 1-3% of the corporate elite we should realize that most of the evidence produced or inferred is no other but mere opinion and based on a particular political agenda. 

"Presidential Debate" Analysis

 Throughout history we have repeatedly encountered a grand variety of patterns that are used in order of persuading individuals, there is a combination of corporal language frontal and vertical perspectives concerning the camera angles and perhaps objectivity, however taking all of these into consideration subjectivity plays by far the most prominent role when it comes to shifting an individuals point of view or and their belief system. Subjectivity is used repeatedly both within the social media and presidential debates since it persuades emotional responses, which in turn disables an audience from thinking analytically. However in the first Presidential debate we come across various strategies used by both candidates such as hand, facial gestures, tones, wording, ethos, pathos, logos and the use of wedge issues in order of creating an illusion of empathy or appeal. In the following paragraphs I will be addressing in depth with examples how each candidate used such strategies and furthermore explaining my opinion concerning their ideas, counter attacks, corporal language and all other subjects used on most of the segments.

Moreover, as the presidential debate starts we encounter Romney’s prominent use of ethos in order of appealing the audience’s emotions, he begins by illustrating a experience he encountered while campaigning, he speaks of a woman having a baby and a husband without a job thus, creating an emotional and psychological relationship between us and this individual, not only does he constantly use fragments of similar experiences of others throughout the entire debate but he finishes each segment by implementing a phrase such as “I can help ” or “for America”  I will restore the vitality of America” again using this idea of “freedom” in order of portraying his “ideology” which in fact contradicts most of the evidence he gives. Conversely when asked how Obama can create jobs, Obama clearly identifies the issues by explaining techniques that would close loopholes and deductions, by defining what are small businesses  by addressing how there should be no tax cuts for corporate businesses. On the other hand we have Romney implementing another experience of a small business man he met in St Louis once again using ethos but no factual evidence, he then once again uses terms such as “They are suffering in this country” conveying sympathy towards small businesses and people in general.

            Furthermore. It was quite stressing observing how Romney would repeatedly disrespect the time limit there was, and subjectively attacking Obama’s facts and ideas, not only would he criticize but he would use similar experiences of random citizens, however this strategy of his makes him seem more credible and empathetic towards the audience. One example that clearly depicts is in segment 5 when Obama speaks of the balanced approach that is needed concerning corporate taxes and economic relief, explaining how there should be no tax breaks for companies that ship over seas furthermore, questioning the audience if we believe EXXON mobile should have tax breaks when we know that the corporate oil industry receives 4 billion in corporate welfare.  Once this was said Romney refuted his idea by solemnly saying he had never heard of such thing, in other words inferring that such evidence is not true.

In my opinion Obama successfully identifies where specific change is needed in order of relieving the economy.

            Speaking of the federal regulation I believe is quite logical that there should be a plenty of more regulations. However Romney used great wording in order stating his belief of excessive regulations and overall did not infer a direct statement clearly depicting his position on such matter. Moreover, something that really bothered me was Romney’s constant use of the term “moral”. In the federal debt segment he begins by saying that the federal debt is no other but a “moral “issue he states “ it is not only an economical issue, it is not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we are taking in” in other words he believes that this is more than just economical but moral and yet he wants tax breaks on high profit corporate industries?

            In conclusion as the presidential debate comes to an end Romney once again uses religion while explaining the role of the government. The republican candidate states the following “ the role of the government is to promote life, to protect lives and liberty” the responsibility of protecting the life of the citizen, thus, does not believe in cutting military expenses. In my opinion this is quite contradictory since on one side he advocates for liberty and “life” and yet believes that the military is a great way of retaining liberty and life.  Overall although Romney spoke much more than Obama, portrayed a great posture, used hand gestures in order of appealing the audience, and used a high pitch tone of voice Obama seemed much more truthful humble and based his ideologies in facts and logic rather than using religion or solemnly basing his ideas through random experiences.

The Origin of the Peace Sign

The Origin of the Peace Sign 

 

As westerners it is quite inevitable to consider a peace sign as a prominently positive symbol representing freedom, peace and unity unlike its actual historical meaning. The peace sign has gained great propaganda and is constantly used in marketing; whether it is fashion, protests, bumper stickers, posters and even in the communist leftists. When we see a peace symbol we immediately relate the medias enforcement towards it; for example we assume by our enculturation that this icon has strong ties to the “hippie” counter-culture movement with a revolutionizing emphasis; we can also relate it as an embodiment of freedom since it has been used by the media representing the U.S which also stands for liberty. So when was this icon engendered? Around 67 A.D the vicious roman emperor Nero revolted publicly against Christianity; it is said that Nero executed Peter brutally by crucifying him upside down; the upside down cross refers to the symbol named as  “Nero’s cross” (crooked Christian) if we take a close look we can comprehend how this symbol was represented as pagan or as an anti-Christ symbol since it has a figurative form of a man (cross) upside down with broken arms.

For the following 1,000 years this logo was tremendously used by organizations whom followed a pagan or satanic ideology, after 2,000 years this symbol was heavily used by Marxist (communist) groups in this specific time it is when the inverted cross adopted the outside circle which is known as the peace and love sign that we see today. It wasn’t until the mid 1950’s when this logo became popularized erupting as a Free Love icon. 

 Even though the Hippie counter-culture supported spiritual leaders, philosophical leaders, encouraged worldwide peace, psychedelic art and music and groups such as NOW (women rights) its history contrast these ideals of unity. Well who would of thought that the actual originating ideology of this particular sign was the total opposite. In my opinion these are the prominent views that as westerners we have towards the peace sign origin; we tend to believe that it follows no religion but yet it enforces worldwide peace and free love. By the 1970’s it’s meaning shifted into a revolutionary aspect; students from Berkeley and throughout the U.S commenced to use the “clenched” peace slogan in posters as a vehicle of revolt against the Vietnam War. Even though it is referred to both freemasonry and Hinduism its actual non-arbitrary meaning comes from the upside down crucification of Peter.      

Just as Hitler’s decision of using a symbol with great social and sacred power (positive) and creating a swastika with movement transferring the representation as a negative force later causing great controversy. A similar happening occurred with this sign but well lets say reversed since it went from a negative representation transitioning into a positive presentation or so we tend to believe. 

 above is one of the first sketches of the peace symbol by Gerald Holtom. The first sketches are on display in the Commonweal Collection in the Bradford Peace Museum in England

The Cove/ the most inspiring movie

-->

 

As Ric O’ Barry began working in the stage of Flipper he began to create a bond with both Sue and Kathy two of the prominent characters who played Flipper. Every Sunday he would bring a TV outside to the dolphins and soon he began to understand that they could distinguish themselves from each other. Ric soon began to realize that these mammals carried a non-human intelligence and a full consciousness of their existence. Capable of feeling, communicating, and not to mention any ultrasonic system that we use is nothing compared to a dolphins sonar system. There fore these acoustic beings have the ability of seeing beyond our bones and determining diseases or pregnancies. Knowing that their primary sense is their sensibility towards sounds. Imagine how a dolphin feels in a stadium full of music and cheering crowds.

So why exactly is Ric O’ Barry trying to liberate dolphins from captivity? Well After the 1964 Flipper TV series aquariums and marine amusement parks skyrocketed over 300 dolphin parks opened including Sea World becoming a multi-million dollar industry; people began to have the aspiration of surrounding themselves with dolphins. At aquariums or at Sea World we see dolphins interacting and somehow we believe that their facial gestures suggest they are happy but the reality is that behind the scenes a vast amount of dolphins die of ulcers caused by the stress they obtain when being exposed to a vast amount of cheering people and the effects of living in captivity. It’s easy to see this as quite insignificant but if we look closely we can understand why they don’t belong in captivity. In the wild regularly a dolphin swims over 40 miles a day which means they can be somewhere in the afternoon and in an hour they can be up to 25 miles away.

So what is it that happens in Taiji, Japan? Well every September for 6 months in Taiji, Japan Boats head to Dolphin migratory routes and knowing of the dolphin’s sensibility to sounds they create a tedious noise by hammering large poles they submerge into the water. Eventually Dolphins are cornered in Taiji, Japan. The next day marine park owners from the U.S and all parts of the world arrive to choose bottle-nosed female dolphins buying them off at about 150,000 thousand dollars which brings a profit of 2-3 million dollars yearly. After marine park owners leave the rest of the dolphins are brutally slaughtered with axes or long knifes. It is estimated that about 23,000 dolphins are slaughtered yearly in only Taiji. This means that by us attending to any aquarium or a Sea World park we are contributing to the captures of thousands of dolphins and paying the fishermen and Taiji Whale Brokers since Taiji is the only largest supplier of dolphins to all marine parks and swim with dolphin programs around the world. So where does all this meat go to? Even though dolphin meat is undesirable for its large amount of mercury. Investigators found that most of Japan’s grocery markets sell their dolphin meat as fine whale meats making a profit of almost 1,000 for each dead dolphin.

 It is interesting how in the 1970’s Roger Payne created a massive social awareness towards the whale slaughtering by bringing exposure of the killings through records of music flourishing Whales acoustic sounds. This erupted creating a wave of revolts against the British government. It only took one man to make a difference by only exposing these actions to the people. So I believe that it only takes exposure for us to create a massive social awareness once again. The best action we can take is to expose this slaughtering, by watching Ric O’ Barry’s film The Cove, and preventing others from going to aquariums or Sea World. We need to comprehend that just like us they are aware of themselves and their families and are able to feel like we do.  By only bringing this social awareness of how the Dolphin industry plays a vast role in the slaughtering of Dolphins in Taji, Japan. We can make a difference. 

Unconstitutional - The War on Our Civil Liberties

Throughout the film it was very interesting to observe how Ashcroft and others used the term “patriot” act as a mean of placing a veil in between society and the government subsequently disabling society from questioning the true purposes behind a “patriotic” bill. Although it has been inferred from the Bush administration that this bill not only serves as a weapon against terrorism but it “protects our lifestyle” from “dangerous political enemies”; as a society we must question why is it that John Ashcroft’s (key supporter) so called detainees had and have no alliance to the 9/11 hijackers. Wouldn’t this convey that perhaps the real purpose behind this “patriot act” is to diminish any human right to privacy which so ever in order of establishing a fascist regimen of oppression? Perhaps my conclusion is a bit too drastic. Well let’s take a look at the facts. In the documentary “Unconstitutional: The War On Our Civil Liberties” Ashcroft infers that the patriot act is solemnly persuaded against political enemies, and yet without enough evidence families such as the Hamoui, and citizens such as Jose Padilla are detained without any charges, no legal representation and no evidence of such crimes. If none of these cases had any empirical evidence, what does this convey?

            

Throughout history  “3^rd” world countries have repeatedly encountered the overthrow of their socialist or communist presidents, and the elimination of progressive socialist groups. One prefect example of such is El Salvador’s civil war, in this particular war the U.S played a prominent role in subsiding and aiding El Salvador’s military by training, organizing and financing their soldiers in the Army School of Las Americas located in Georgia. The Army school of Las Americas was an organization structured with the aim of terrorizing and overall eliminating socialist progressive movements. In other words eliminating movements that aid and enforce social equanimity with a leftist inclination.  What I am trying to say is that, I am not surprised of such happenings since the small percentage of the elite has repeatedly enforced such organizations and bills in order of oppressing the people’s basic civil liberties in order of maintaining the current capitalistic system.