Contemporary science has assimilated the bigoted views it hoped to reject. The scientific community, its ideas and perceptions, represent accepted scientific beliefs rather than perpetual and real scientific theories. Gould and Lewontin's essay "The Spandrels of San Marco" discusses an adaptationist agenda and how it has taken over evolutionary belief in England and the United States over the past forty years. People believe in the power of natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution. The authors disagree with this thinking and are trying to reaffirm a competing theory that organisms should be seen as an integrated whole. Gould and Lewontin show their explanations for a pluralistic perspective of evolutionary theory through diction, quotations, and examples; they are able to persuade readers with their opinions. Through specific diction, Gould and Lewontin create a distinction between their views and the adaptationist agenda. The adaptationist program is “truly [a] Panglossian paradigm” (Gould and Lewontin, 344). This gives a negative connotation to these evolutionist scholars and places them on the opposite side of evolution; natural selection versus pluralism. The authors make them enemies by questioning the reliance of these modern evolutionary scholars on adaptations. This negative meaning makes readers understand that the problems with adaptation are its idea of ​​perfection, each adaptive trait is used to explain every action performed by an organism they are able to both attack and defend their opinions when they say that "every trait plays its part and must be as it is". (Gould and Lewontin, 344). They do this by mocking the idea that every trait is but. ..... half of the paper ......, clearly mean the action of natural selection applied to particular cases, rather than the fact of transmutation itself) (Gould and Lewontin 347)This is one of the most important examples as shows that there is always a return to natural selection that fails to consider other alternatives. In retrospect, Gould and Lewontin want to spread their ideas so as not to cause social conflict or scientific debate; they welcome the richness that a pluralistic path so affiliated with the spirit of Darwin can offer. The authors do a good job of influencing readers on their understanding of the pluralistic view of evolutionary theory through diction, quotes, and examples. Because of their view that organisms are a unified whole; the pluralistic perspective could bring organisms, with all their undisciplined but understandable complexity, back into evolutionary theory.