Expert answer:English questions #1
Expert answer:English questions / help pls chech the attachments
edward_o.docx
questions__week.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
EDWARD O. WILSON Edward O. Wilson, born in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1929, is an emeritus
professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard University. A distinguished writer as well as a researcher
and teacher, Wilson has twice won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction. We reprint a piece first
published in 2006 in Wilson’s book The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. Letter to a Southern
Baptist Minister Dear Pastor: We have not met, yet I feel I know you well enough to call you friend. First
of all, we grew up in the same faith. As a boy I too answered the altar call; I went under the water.
Although I no longer belong to that faith, I am confident that if we met and spoke privately of our deepest
beliefs, it would be in a spirit of mutual respect and good will. I know we share many precepts of moral
behavior. Perhaps it also matters that we are both Americans and, insofar as it might still affect civility
and good manners, we are both Southerners. I write to you now for your counsel and help. Of course, in
doing so, I see no way to avoid the fundamental differences in our respective worldviews. You are a
literalist interpreter of Christian Holy Scripture. You reject the conclusion of science that mankind
evolved from lower forms. You believe that each person’s soul is immortal, making this planet a way
station to a second, eternal life. Salvation is assured those who are redeemed in Christ. I am a secular
humanist. I think existence is what we make of it as individuals. There is no guarantee of life after death,
and heaven and hell are what we create for ourselves, on this planet. There is no other home. Humanity
originated here by evolution from lower forms over millions of years. And yes, I will speak plain, our
ancestors were apelike animals. The human species has adapted physically and mentally to life on Earth
and no place else. Ethics is the code of behavior we share on the basis of reason, law, honor, and an
inborn sense of decency, even as some ascribe it to God’s will. For you, the glory of an unseen divinity;
for me, the glory of the universe revealed at last. For you, the belief in God made flesh to save mankind;
for me, the belief in Promethean1 fire seized to set men free. You have found your final truth; I am still
searching. I may be wrong, you may be wrong. We may both be partly right. 5Does this difference in
worldview separate us in all things? It does not. You and I and every other human being strive for the
same imperatives of security, freedom of choice, personal dignity, and a cause to believe in that is larger
than ourselves. Let us see, then, if we can, and you are willing, to meet on the near side of metaphysics in
order to deal with the real world we share. I put it this way because you have the power to help solve a
great problem about which I care deeply. I hope you have the same concern. I suggest that we set aside
our differences in order to save the Creation. The defense of living Nature is a universal value. It doesn’t
rise from, nor does it promote, any religious or ideological dogma. Rather, it serves without
discrimination the interests of all humanity. Pastor, we need your help. The Creation —living Nature — is
in deep trouble. Scientists estimate that if habitat conversion and other destructive human activities
continue at their present rates, half the species of plants and animals on Earth could be either gone or at
least fated for early extinction by the end of the century. A full quarter will drop to this level during the
next half century as a result of climate change alone. The ongoing extinction rate is calculated in the most
conservative estimates to be about a hundred times above that prevailing before humans appeared on
Earth, and it is expected to rise to at least a thousand times greater or more in the next few decades. If this
rise continues unabated, the cost to humanity, in wealth, environmental security, and quality of life, will
be catastrophic. Surely we can agree that each species, however inconspicuous and humble it may seem to
us at this moment, is a masterpiece of biology, and well worth saving. Each species possesses a unique
combination of genetic traits that fits it more or less precisely to a particular part of the environment.
Prudence alone dictates that we act quickly to prevent the extinction of species and, with it, the
pauperization of Earth’s ecosystems — hence of the Creation. You may well ask at this point, Why me?
Because religion and science are the two most powerful forces in the world today, including especially
the United States. If religion and science could be united on the common ground of biological
conservation, the problem would soon be solved. If there is any moral precept shared by people of all
beliefs, it is that we owe ourselves and future generations a beautiful, rich, and healthful environment. 10I
am puzzled that so many religious leaders, who spiritually represent a large majority of people around the
world, have hesitated to make protection of the Creation an important part of their magisterium.2 Do they
believe that human-centered ethics and preparation for the afterlife are the only things that matter? Even
more perplexing is the widespread conviction among Christians that the Second Coming is imminent, and
that therefore the condition of the planet is of little consequence. Sixty percent of Americans, according to
a 2004 poll, believe that the prophecies of the book of Revelation are accurate. Many of these, numbering
in the millions, think the End of Time will occur within the life span of those now living. Jesus will return
to Earth, and those redeemed by Christian faith will be transported bodily to heaven, while those left
behind will struggle through severe hard times and, when they die, suffer eternal damnation. The
condemned will remain in hell, like those already consigned in the generations before them, for a trillion
trillion years, enough for the universe to expand to its own, entropic death, time enough for countless
universes like it afterward to be born, expand, and likewise die away. And that is just the beginning of
how long condemned souls will suffer in hell — all for a mistake they made in choice of religion during
the infinitesimally small time they inhabited Earth. For those who believe this form of Christianity, the
fate of 10 million other life forms indeed does not matter. This and other similar doctrines are not gospels
of hope and compassion. They are gospels of cruelty and despair. They were not born of the heart of
Christianity. Pastor, tell me I am wrong! However you will respond, let me here venture an alternative
ethic. The great challenge of the twenty-first century is to raise people everywhere to a decent standard of
living while preserving as much of the rest of life as possible. Science has provided this part of the
argument for the ethic: the more we learn about the biosphere, the more complex and beautiful it turns out
to be. Knowledge of it is a magic well: the more you draw from it, the more there is to draw. Earth, and
especially the razor-thin film of life enveloping it, is our home, our wellspring, our physical and much of
our spiritual sustenance. I know that science and environmentalism are linked in the minds of many with
evolution, Darwin, and secularism. Let me postpone disentangling all this (I will come back to it later)
and stress again: to protect the beauty of Earth and of its prodigious variety of life forms should be a
common goal, regardless of differences in our metaphysical beliefs. To make the point in good Gospel
manner, let me tell the story of a young man, newly trained for the ministry, and so fixed in his Christian
faith that he referred all questions of morality to readings from the Bible. When he visited the cathedrallike Atlantic rainforest of Brazil, he saw the manifest hand of God and in his notebook wrote, “It is not
possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill
and elevate the mind.” 15That was Charles Darwin in 1832, early into the voyage of HMS Beagle, before
he had given any thought to evolution. And here is Darwin, concluding On the Origin of Species in 1859,
having first abandoned Christian dogma and then, with his newfound intellectual freedom, formulated the
theory of evolution by natural selection: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and
most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Darwin’s reverence for life remained the same as he
crossed the seismic divide that divided his spiritual life. And so it can be for the divide that today
separates scientific humanism from mainstream religion. And separates you and me. You are well
prepared to present the theological and moral arguments for saving the Creation. I am heartened by the
movement growing within Christian denominations to support global conservation. The stream of thought
has arisen from many sources, from evangelical to unitarian. Today it is but a rivulet. Tomorrow it will be
a flood. I already know much of the religious argument on behalf of the Creation, and would like to learn
more. I will now lay before you and others who may wish to hear it the scientific argument. You will not
agree with all that I say about the origins of life — science and religion do not easily mix in such matters
— but I like to think that in this one life-and-death issue we have a common purpose. 1Promethean In
Greek mythology, Prometheus was a Titan who looked after mankind, going so far as to steal fire from
Mount Olympus to give it to humans. [Editors’ note.] 2magisterium The official teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church. [Editors’ note.]
As part of your textbook readings this week, you should have read Edward Wilson’s “Letter to a Southern
Baptist Minister” (see the “Textbook Readings” this week for details). This letter is an example of
Rogerian argument. For this forum, answer the following questions:
1. How was Wilson able to state the problem and indicate that a dialogue was possible?
2. Was he courteous to those who hold views other than his? How or how not?
3. Has he pointed out the ground that he shares with the opposition? What are some points he makes
concerning this?
4. Wilson obviously seeks to present his views in a fashion that makes them as palatable as possible.
Do you think he succeeds in his endeavor? Why or why not?
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades