Boa Boas Arguments Against Evolutionary Theory

The Japanese attack on Darwin on the 19th February 1942, did not happen by chance but from the work of a major contributing factor leading to various consequences and eventually cementing the event as a significant one.

Rachel Woznicki Short Paper 1 01/27/15 What Does Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism Say? Plantinga’s argument against naturalism is very engaging. He begins to state that a lot of people believing Darwin’s theory of evolution have misguided beliefs about naturalism. Comprehensively, he argues that the contingency of humans having stable “cognitive faculties” is extremely inferior.

He asks, “Is it really plausible that one culture enjoys access to the moral facts regarding marital arrangements whereas the other lacks that access?” ("Mackie's Arguments for the Moral Error Theory”). He further continues his argument by questioning the possible outcome of monogamy happened to develop in one culture but not the other and that the respective moral view emerged as a result. With this argument, he proposes that assuming that nature is the only matter of truth that causes the shift of monogamy to shift in different cultures is not always correct and that there are numerous reasons as to why certain cultures follow a certain way of living rather than others. In a science-related perspective, if this example was proposed to a realist, their answer would be very vague in believing that there was a shift in culture different due to a single factor change, and would conclude it as another theory.

The study of science is defined as that which deals with the workings of the physical world we are able to observe and measure. The origin of life, however, is a topic that science has long grappled with, despite the impossibility of observing or proving any origins theory in a strictly scientific manner. Today, the widely accepted theory of life’s beginning is the theory of Evolution by mutation and natural selection, or Neo-Darwinism. Most people in our modern society accept this theory at face value because it is popular with the majority of scientists, but it must always be taken into account that our origins cannot be proven scientifically and that, in fact, the theory of Evolution is not the only or even the most logical theory

In the history of human societies, geographic differences are considered to be a factor that led to different lifestyles, values and beliefs that prevailed and have been the distinct characteristic of specific societies in the world today. From a broader viewpoint, it can be said that Asian cultures differ from North American, European, South American, and African cultures. However, it can also be said that there are similarities between North American, European, and African cultures, in the same way that Asian, South American, and again, African cultures share specific values and beliefs. These similarities and differences demonstrate that we are different from each other in so many ways, but we also have similarities that link each individual with another, and ultimately, that we are interdependent with each other.

The debate over Evolutionary theories and Creationism beliefs has been a major debate throughout our churches, education system, and even our homes. There have been countless scientists, theologians, journalists and Christians that have studied both sides of the spectrum, that argue how the world we live in was created. Many empty statements, with little to no facts, just assertions about this particular question have been stated in many debates all over the world. So on one side we have Creationism belief that essentially argues that God is the “intelligent designer” and on the other side Evolutionary theories that state the world has evolved over the centuries. In the Merriam- Webster dictionary, Creationism is defined as, “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis “. Merriam- Webster dictionary also defines Evolution as, “a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time; the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time; a process of slow change and development”. So is it possible to believe both of those definitions?

Cultural relativism is the belief that others should understand one 's culture and that their way of doing things should not be frowned upon by those in another culture. Right and wrong are dictated by the culture and should not be judged by other people from different cultures. What is morally correct in one culture may be morally incorrect for someone in an alternate culture. However, seeing convictions of another culture that one is not accustomed to can be troublesome. It is hard not to judge one 's beliefs when in your culture you conceivably believe the opposite. Once a person is raised to believe what they have been taught in their culture it is hard to comprehend another culture 's beliefs, especially if in your culture their belief repudiates yours. The objective of this essay is to study my culture and beliefs from another cultures perspective. In this paper, I will examine my culture of American marriage and the beliefs within from an etic view and the sub-Saharan beliefs on marriage from an emic view.

Evolutionary psychologists therefore look for a theoretical combination of all the different scientific disciplines examining human’s behaviours and beliefs under this biological "view of a single, universal panhuman design" (1992). Therefore, evolutionary psychology can be described as a new theory based hypothesis that combines the current principals of psychology with the main principals of evolutionary biology (Buss, 1996). This study will critique evolutionary theory under the subsequent headings.

European and Native-American women share few similarities, but both groups religions give them societally

Although Darwin’s (1809-1882) work in evolutionary observation might appear radically different from those focused on other areas, the theories he developed from these observation lead to such groundbreaking publishing’s as The Origin of Species. These intern caused an upset within the then accepted norms of philosophy and religion, had a profound impact on the academia, and further

People who interact with different cultures find that their values and interest are similar and began to see themselves as mates forging an intercultural relationship that turns into marriage.

No individual can arrive at the threshold of his potentialities without a culture in which he participates. Conversely, no civilization has in it any element that the last analysis is not the contribution of an individual. Where else could any trait come from except from the behaviour of a man or a woman or a child? (253)

First, the debate of what the nature of anthropology could be said to begin in the era of Franz Boas. Franz Boas stated how he expected anthropologists

It may be argued that the Boasian example is not indicative of a paradigm shift, as anthropology itself was too new a field to have a consensus. Whether or not the data gathered resulted from anomalies in his working paradigm is a consideration. Boas does appear to have stepped outside the bounds of the paradigm from the start, never attempting to fit his data into the existing evolutionary

Boas’ rejection of data that was not collected in the field is well-documented and presents a nature that was very specific in its analysis of the subject. His determination to go out into the field and collect the data for the project ushered in a new respectability to the field in that he was not merely regurgitating data that had been collected for another study but rather he was analyzing a specific set of information that was pertinent to the study at hand. He introduced the concept of empirical observation. This initial use of fieldwork set Boas ahead of the rest of the anthropologists. He was not content to take old data and make it suit his theories.