Human Nature And Human Diversity

This article written by Mark Nathan Cohen, who is an anthropology professor in the State University of New York; talks about how race does not define human diversity. In the article, he also mentions that in school students learn the definition of race based on “biological variation” and not based on their culture. The professor Cohen says that studies on human family tree that were based on their genetic analysis of traits do not show any relation of who those traits belong to. He gives an example by stating that even skin color is not a god indicator of who it relates to because the “traits occur independently in several different branches of the human family.”

During my time enrolled in Psy 3325: Stereotypes, Prejudice Discrimination, taught by Dr. Tay Hack, we explored several topics concerning social differences. Using the textbook ‘ Understanding the Psychology of Diversity’ second Edition, I gained a deeper understanding of how the mind groups individuals together both consciously and unconsciously thus influencing the way we treat a person. In this course we covered racism, classism, homosexism, weightism, ageism, and the stigmas that come with these titles.

One of the most challenging professions for African American males is social work. As a social worker, I have realized that I have to work under two domains. The first one is to work under the race identity and the second one is to work as a class identity. Although I am proud of being an African American, I usually feel sorry for myself being from unprivileged social class in the American society. The identity of being an African American male has affected my social work in many aspects. This is because it has made it impossible to carry out my professional duties because of negative perspectives and discrimination in the society. African American social workers are considered to be incompetent by the rest of the society hence making it impossible to delegate duties without any form of discrimination. This paper provides my own reflections as an African American male in the field of social work and how this identity has affected my practice in community work and advocacy duties.

Dr. Connie Bertka’s essay, “A Primer on Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism,” expands on Kingsolver’s idea that science and religion have cohabited by explaining how science and religion are formative elements that shape society and serves to contribute to the common good. The relationship between science and religion can be described as a conflict approach which means that “science sets the standard of truth to which religion must adhere to or be dismissed or religion sets the standard to which science must conform.” On the other hand, science and religion can form an interactive relationship in which ideas converge from a scientific and religious perspective. Dr. Bertka mentions that religion and science can be taught in a classroom, since their interactive relationship can constructively benefit from engagement, since they both lead to individual insight and communal discernment.

The Dawkins chapter speaks about the debate between religion and science and how religious people refuse to even give science teachers and professors the time of day. Most of the time people will refuse to listen to what has been proven due to their religious beliefs. Evolution professors have even been threatened with the loss of their jobs. Even though, many professors have tried to explain that evolution is a fact and one of the greatest of God’s works, still their time is wasted. The pope and educated priests and professors of theology have been known to no longer have a problem with evolution because they understand that evolution is a fact and not intended to be an anti-religious study.

Dawkins describes what he takes to be Christian faith in a way that demonstrates a thorough lack of any serious study of Christian history or doctrines, as if his prejudices about faith constitute scholarly understanding. For example, Dawkins claims that faith means accepting a belief without proof. No serious Christian scholar would agree that Christian doctrine recommends such a foolhardy approach to belief. Yet Dawkins insists upon this

Richard Dawkins ' theory about “mind viruses” is not only wrong, it creates a dangerous divide between religiously inclined people and non-religious people, that could only serve to worsen the current tensions that are plaguing the global society today. Dawkins theory threatens to cause a schism in the relationship between religious and non-religious people, which is already in shambles in our times.

To begin his book, Dawkins starts with the discussion of problems with biology in present-day. He talks about the forty percent of Americans that refuse to consider being descendants of chimpanzees and/or other non-human animals. Many Americans also deny the earth to being over 10,000 years old. More so, Dawkins goes on to explain the troubles with people questioning the Roman Empires existence. He asks the reader to put their selves into a history teachers shoes. This makes the reader see how it is to teach a class that does not believe there was a Roman Empire. For a teacher, this is super hard because his job was to teach the Roman Empire. This teacher had to deal with students wanting him to teach the alternatives to the theories. He also

This investigation is an exploration into the Kotch and Chernofsky family history. In which the cultural and historical background of each ancestry will be examined. Additionally, this investigation will also examine the paternal genetic lineage of the Kotch Family. In which the genomic haplogroup will be expressed through ancestral analysis and migration patterns.

"Science is wonderful, science is beautiful." This quote from Dawkins was intriguing to me. Its almost as though science had supplemented for religion the way he spoke about it. He later added that "religion is not wonderful, religion is not beautiful. It gets in the way." This idea that religion is a

Judaeo-Christianity is in a crisis of faith. Surely, Fr Francis Marsden (Credo, The Catholic Times, 12 and 19th August); feeding Catholic children theistic Darwinism combined with the big bang theory is far worst then atheist Professor Richard Dawkins will ever do; as Confused or lukewarm Catholics are produced, unsure of scripture, unable to defend its substance verbatim, and who will eventually leave the faith.

Dawkins's film begins with the concept of one killing himself and others for his beliefs in religion. "There are would be murders all around the world who want to kill you and me and themselves because they're motivated by what think is the highest ideal." He uses this statement to set the stage for his argument against religion. Throughout the video, Dawkins refers to faith as the process of nonthinking and claims that there is a contradiction between science and religious belief. To prove his point that science and

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Science “aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by the liberation of the human mind” (Wilson, 7). Both religion and science seek to explain the unknown. Instead of surrendering reasoning with the traditional religion, a scientific approach one takes full authority over it. Being an empiricist, Wilson takes favors the scientific approach to the question: “why are things the way they are?” This question can pose two meanings: How did this happen, and what is the purpose. Traditional religion answers this question with stories, many of which are impossible to prove or disprove, making them arguments of ignorance. These explanations entail the adherent surrender reasoning and put faith in the resolution. According to Wilson these are always wrong (Wilson, 49). Science is the most effective way to learn about the natural world. Religion is merely speculation.

We live in a society where people come from different countries, they belong to different cultural, religion, ethnic groups, and races. All these factors come together and contributes to differences that make us unique from each other. Hence, a multicultural country with huge diversity. This reflection journal will cover what “human race” is and what role it plays in ones’ personal life and in a nursing profession. Moreover, what bias, assumptions and judgements are, and how to avoid them. Lastly, what caring is and what role does it play in nursing.