By having requirements to return archaeological findings back to their native tribes entirely, archaeologists are limited in their discoveries and possibly their job. An archaeological discovery is meaningless if it never experiences any practical investigation on whether its characteristics benefit society. For this reason, archaeologists should own the right to keep critically important parts of Kennewick Man’s skull such as his teeth, but return the rest of the skull to the Colville tribe and find an equal compromise. DNA testing should be the first step in deriving information from an archaeological discovery such as a skull, but NAGPRA should give archaeologists the right to keep the most important parts of discoveries for scientific use and then return the remaining parts to the native tribe. In the long run, scientific progress is prevented whenever conflicts emerge over the ownership of archaeological discoveries, therefore Native American tribes should have the courtesy to allow archaeologists to use only specific parts of a specimen and have the remaining parts returned to them if DNA testing comes back positive in relation to their
Even though this issue has begun to die out of the archaeological spotlight, it is still of importance to every anthropologist. Repatriation has undergone continuous consideration by anthropologists, politicians, and Native Americans alike. Overall, the repatriation process has had a profound effect on the discipline of anthropology and the cultural processes of American Indians, in addition to the politics of anthropology and archaeology in the United States. One of the biggest downfalls of current repatriation legislation is its lack of protection of Archaic and Paleoindian remains and cultural materials. The laws encompass more recent burials, but simply cannot extend their coverage further into the past. While there is still room to improve in creating even stronger policies to rule out uncertainties regarding repatriation, many positives have come from the legislation.
The 1920’s were a time of change. New ideas were becoming more readily experimented with and even accepted by large portions of the population. Some of these included jazz music and the fight against the alcoholic prohibition. The radical idea I will focus on in this paper, however, is Evolution. It is a theory that had been around for over half a century before the 20’s but had only more recently caught on in the US. It contradicted the Christian theory of Divine Creation as described in the Bible. This caused many religious fundamentalists to fight against it. They took their battle to the law books, and they were challenged by pro-evolution modernists in the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925.
Napoleon Bonaparte once stated that “history is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.” As evolution continues we see a change in not only what the future may bring, but also what the past may have to offer. The history we are taught is based on the teachings and readings of others, as it is clear that reliable resources are limited because we simply were not around during those specific times. The Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey proves this exact notion; that in actuality, what may have been relayed to us historically may not have been the entire truth, but who are we to claim that or disprove such things?
Many people consider science and religion to be at loggerheads. Other people consider religions and science to be completely unrelated and different facets. The idea that many people have is that science seems to be more popular than the legions since it is based on facts while religion is based on perceptions. However, what many people fail to realize is that science is not the only source of facts, and religion has been effective in reaching out beyond the realms of morals and values. Indeed, science and religions rely on one another in examining and explaining the things that happens in the daily lives of individuals. Although the views of religion and science have been more or less distinct, there are several ways in which science and religions come together. This paper reviews
Provided that science still requires repeatable and measurable outcomes, the thought that eukaryotes produced sophisticated human life capable of high functioning individuals when they could not even develop the most basic features is preposterous.
Like with dinosaurs, for example. I believe that the past should stay in the past. Why bring something so dangerous into a place where they wouldn’t understand or know any better? Let alone, why put it in a place where they wouldn’t know what to do with themselves than to think of the
Climate deniers are accused of practicing pseudoscience, as are intelligent design creationists, astrologers, UFOlogists, parapsychologists, practitioners of alternative medicine, and often anyone who strays far from the scientific mainstream. The boundary problem between science and pseudoscience, in fact, is notoriously fraught with definitional disagreements because the categories are too broad and fuzzy on the edges, and the term “pseudoscience” is subject to adjectival abuse against any claim one happens to dislike for any reason. In his 2010 book Nonsense on Stilts (University of Chicago Press), philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci concedes that there is “no litmus test,” because “the boundaries separating science, nonscience, and
Throughout the age of science and theology, there has been a constant controversial debate regarding the existence of an intelligent designer, specifically, the idea of irreducibly complex systems. Michael Behe defines this as “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning… An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution” (Behe, p. 39). On one side, most Christians believe that God, as the intelligent designer, is responsible for all that earth inhabits, including their biological systems in which they live by.
Ever since the 1560’s, when Galileo Galilei disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church due to their teachings of the Tychonic teachings, religious individuals and realists have been bickering. Despite their differences, they both strive to answer one question: how did our universe come to be? Though these two areas have radically opposite explanations, they both have extensively detailed answers to this question. The natural sciences provide evidence to their response through the fields of Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, and Biology. Religion is very different. There are a variety of religions in our world, all of which have very different beliefs. This conflict between religion and natural sciences creates a remarkably different environment within each of these areas. In science, each theory that is created is supported by at least another area of knowledge. For example, the interaction between science and mathematics. The fields significantly impact one another, especially in physics. To find the acceleration or velocity of an object hurtling through space, a physicist would have to use integrals and derivatives to make sense of the problem. The opposite occurs in religion. There are such obscure differences in this area of knowledge. For example, the notion of monotheistic faiths and polytheistic religions. This debate has been going on for centuries, only because each person believes that there is a singular higher being or multiple. Despite these stereotypes, there are
Science is the process which discovers knowledge, knowledge in turn is power, and power is said to bring about corruption. Therefore, through the transitive property, that implies that science will only lead to corruption. Not necessarily a corruption of one’s actions; for instance, science won’t make a politician accept a bribe. However, some would argue that science will lead to a degradation of morals. For example, contemporary science may lead to a woman viewing her unborn baby as naught but a ball of cells, similar to a tumor, which can be removed from her body with no moral dilemma. The converse to this is the impediment of science due to humanity clinging to its archaic values. This can be shown by the opposition to stem cell research and genetically modified embryos in the name of morals and the inviolability of life. The stark contrast between following morals and advancing science creates a juxtaposition that often manifests itself as a debate between religion and science. Certain members of both the scientific and religious communities blindly adhere to their own opinions and ideals. This butting of heads helps no one. As a result, a middle road must be found, one in which neither progress nor morality are ignored. The polarity between these two forces is encapsulated by the differences that Bertolt Brecht draws in his play Galileo between Galileo and the clergymen. This play, when contrasted with the reality of Galileo’s
Scientia, the Latin noun meaning “to know” is the etymological root of the modern English word science (Merriam-Webster, 2016). It is perhaps fitting that many of the greatest minds of our time consider science to be the ultimate source of truth, knowledge, and understanding. Famed chemist, professor, and author Peter Atkins (1995) believes “science is the best procedure yet discovered for exposing fundamental truths about the world” (Atkins, 1995, p. 97). This paper will challenge that assertion and argue that science is not the only source of truth, that there are deeply philosophical and metaphysical questions that science cannot fully explain. This paper will explore the idea of truth as a subjective, non-quantifiable phenomenon that is not wholly consistent with the scientific process. Finally, this paper will briefly explore the divide between science and religion.
Since the beginning of the intellectual development of mankind, the question of whether there is god or not has been a question that still remains. However, its effects on our way of thinking has been shaped by a number of people, thinkers, priests, scientists so on and so forth. If we were to divide that continuum into two parts, they would be before the enlightenment and after the enlightenment. Namely the times of natural philosophy and times of science since the term produced after the mid eighteenths. Before the enlightenment religion was the core, center pillar of natural philosophy when the medieval Europe was thought. Nevertheless, after that era the