Geronimo Down

I may be the only person on Monday morning that didn't already know that Osama Bin Laden had been killed.  I have a two year old- I go to bed early and watch a lot of cartoons with her, so when my mom came over Monday morning at 7:30 practically bouncing off the walls asking if we had seen the news, we replied "what news?" 

She seemed happy so it couldn't be a terrorist attack or natural disaster.  My mind raced trying to guess what she was referring to.  Did they announce that the apartment complex near her house that is notorious for drug deals and home invasions would be leveled to make room for a new park?  Did Pete Rose get reinstated?

"We got Osama Bin Laden, the seals got 'em last night".  My brother, who is graduating from the Naval Academy in a few weeks called my mom at 2am to share the news and explain that when word broke, every midshipman in Annapolis flooded out of their dorms and out into the streets.  They chanted and marched over to the commandants house to wake him up. 

I don't have any moral qualms about executing this guy.  I have heard people complaining that its not right to celebrate any one's death, no matter who they are.  That makes sense, especially given how reserved he was after murdering 3,000 Americans while they were at work on September 11th.  Give me a break.

Although I am not an Obama fan by any stretch, I have to give credit where credit is due.  It was not an easy decision to send seals in, but the outcome was far better than simply bombing the complex and risking collateral damage.  I can even understand why they gave him a burial at sea.  I know it made a lot of people mad, but it was the right thing to do to send a message that this was not an attack on the Muslim religion, but simply this man.  I also agree with not releasing the photos.  We don't to glorify what happened and certainly don't need to give remaining terrorists fodder for another attack.

In short, I am freaking thrilled that this man is dead and gone.

Midterm Playlist

Right about now, I am gravitating towards mellow music and feel good songs.  After all, even though we are halfway there and we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, we still have to deal with exams and papers.  Not to mention all this damn rain.

These songs either lift my spirits a little or remind me that summer is right around the corner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bjX9-DtI5s&playnext=1&list=PL41BE9E15BF7FAC0D

Three Dog Night, Brickyard Blues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roiyFkBBcYs&feature=fvsr

Jefferson Starship

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOiVaE-pKqM

Paul Simon, You can call me Al

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNczeP33Yk0

CCR

Funny Link!

So I finally found a song that reflects how I feel about this assignment and class in general.

As I was writing my literature review last week I was listening to the reds play the cardinals.  There were storm clouds rolling in and it was pretty obvious that there would be a rain delay.  Tony LaRussa warmed up a bullpen pitcher and had him start the game (all six pitches worth) so that after the rain delay he could sub in his actual starter.  Crafty move!

I was reminded of this song, which criticizes LaRussa for putting a little too much thought and strategy into his games.  He makes tons of line up changes even when the cardinals have a big lead.  I like the comment that its baseball, not chess, and the comparison to Han Solo navigating the Millennium Falcon.

This is how I'm feeling about this class right about now.  I'm supposed to make comments on every discussion board post before the actual deadline to post them.  (What am I supposed to do if only 5 people have submitted their threads?)  I have to make a blog post every week, and comment on 7 other blogs.  And lets not forget that aside from the slightly redundant literature review assignments I have to write mini-papers on ethics, rhetoric, etc.  In short, if the goal of this freshman level class is to learn how to write an effective research paper, I feel like it's a little more complicated than it needs to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GzYofZQ-b4

However, this is not a dig to our wonderful professor.  Although I may think that this class is an awful lot of work for 3 credit hours, there is something to be said for results.  Tony LaRussa has won 5 pennants and 2 world series titles.  So maybe, as aggravated as I may be right at this moment, all these assignments are really meant to give me a solid background and make me a better writer.  Here's hoping that I have the same success as those stupid cardinals!

My Literature Review

Amy Johnson

Professor Kerley

English 102

4/23/2100

Literature Review

     Throughout history, it has been widely accepted that the earth and the life forms on it were created by some supernatural deity.  Many ancient cultures, from the ancient Romans to Native Americans, relied on Gods or Spirits to explain phenomena that they themselves could not logically explain.  Around 400 years ago the scientific revolution began, and scientists began to catalog the fossil record.  The fossil record began to change the way that people thought about the earth.  The deepest layers showed organisms that were unfamiliar, but newer layers contained animals that resembled living organisms.  These findings paved the way for naturalists such as Darwin to develop the theory of evolution (Thwaites).

     Evolution is not merely a theory about the origins of life.  It uses the phenomena of natural selection, mutations, and genetic drift to account for similarities and differences observed among species and across varying habitats.  Evolution has been observed and tested for centuries, and has been confirmed over and over by a wide range of professional fields. 

     Despite the overwhelming evidence, there is a movement among fundamentalist as well as mainstream Christians to discredit evolution and teach “creationism” instead.  Creationism is the belief that life on earth was created by God.  There are varying degrees of creationism, ranging from young earth creationists that believe the earth is 6,000 years old and was created in six days as illustrated in the bible, to intelligent design, which claims that life on earth is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher power.  The unifying theme in all sects of creationism is that God created the world, more specifically the God that is described in the Bible.  This theory is unabashedly religious in nature, and seeks to promote a Christian view of God.  It is for this reason that creationism should not be taught in public school science classes in America.

     The relatively new field of creation science seeks to promote creationism by using scientific methods to gain credibility.  Traditional science makes observations and then proposes logical explanations for them.  Creation science takes the opposite approach, as John Whitmore, a geologist from Cedarville University explains, “Instead, we think: ‘Here’s what the Bible says. Now let’s go to the rocks and see if we find the evidence for it.’” (Rosin).  This line of thinking is inconsistent with the accepted scientific method, but examples can be found in many scholarly articles.  An experiment on carbon dating made assumptions about the carbon levels found in varying levels underground, explaining that the great flood would have moved diamonds and fossils around and resulted in the rapid decomposition of organic material (Baumgardner).  One article used mathematical articles to recreate the velocities of the oceans if the continents were covered by water during Noah’s flood.  They used these conditions to explain that large amounts of sediments could have accumulated at once, accounting for the layers in the fossil record (Prabhu).  Creation scientists use gaps in evolutionary theory to attempt to prove that the theory itself is flawed and incorrect.  When the science doesn’t support their own theories, however, they use biblical events as if they were in fact a literal timeline in an attempt to explain away those inconsistencies. 

     It is for these reasons that creationism should not be taught as science in public schools.  With the exception of the scopes monkey trial in the 1920’s, nearly every recent court decision has upheld the teaching of evolution and struck down attempts to add creationism to curriculums.  In 1982, the Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas law that required the balanced teaching of evolution and creation science writing that creation science is designed to support a biblical account of the creation and origin of humans (Dowling-Sendor).  In the fall of 2005 during the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design could not be taught in public schools, as it was not a scientific theory but thinly disguised fundamental creationism.  He also decried the actions of the school board that rejected all advice from science teachers, outside scientific experts, complaints from parents, and their own lawyers in an attempt to promote their own religious beliefs (Padian).  The court system has repeatedly upheld these decisions that prohibit creation science from being taught in public schools.  Unfortunately the creationist movement is a grass roots movement, and laws are passed in school districts around the country that require equal time be given to evolution and creation.

     Several organizations such as the National Center for Science Education have formed to promote the teaching of evolution in schools.  An individuals religious belief must be harmful to the general population before it can be suppressed or sanctioned, so pitting science against religion is futile (Padian).  Concerned parents, educators, and taxpayers should instead focus on promoting the theory of evolution.  Continued education courses for science teachers may empower them to confidently teach this subject (Meyers).  The NCSE website offers tips on how to successfully petition a school board, and advice on writing an effective letter to the editor (NCSE.com).  Additionally, the focus of the argument can be shifted away from attacking religious beliefs to promoting religious fairness and the cost and expense to taxpayers (Padin).  These tactics, among others, can promote evolutionary theory, and clearly draw the line between science and religion.

    

Literature review troubles

I just submitted what I'm hoping will pass for a literature review.  I know we discussed it in-depth in class, but it just doesn't make sense to me.  The term literature review makes me think that I am to review my research and point out the main themes and where they fit in to my overall argument.  But wait, didn't I write a 10 page annotated bibliography that was supposed to do that?

Maybe I am supposed to pull out quotes and valuable information from my research that I will use to support my argument, then piece them together so that they flow in a logical manner.  That sounds an awful lot like a research paper to me.

In short, what I sent in was a very short, sketchy first draft of my final paper.  Is that the idea?  I seem to remember hearing something between claps of thunder in class that we are writing our paper in pieces so its less intimidating.  If that's the case than I have a pretty good start.

Playlist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_7BaiHmuRs

yup, it's weird Al.  So what?  This is what google thought I wanted when I asked for songs about science...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHex9GDQ2S0

Oh the eternal wisdom of Family Guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCYvPUChnIo

Yep this is pretty much how it happened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xoMhCT-7A

The main argument of Intelligent Design is that the world is so complex that it must have been designed by a supernatural being.  This song makes reminds me that even if it can be explained, its still breath taking at times