Copy of Deconstructing Oral Arguments - Denial of Evolution PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Copy of Deconstructing Oral Arguments - Denial of Evolution PDF

Description

Barclay 1

Nicolette Barclay October 23, 2017 AP Seminar Deconstructing Oral Arguments - Denial of Evolution Bill Nye ● Identify the author’s argument, main idea, or thesis. ○ Not believing in the concept of evolution -- the key component of the study of life -- is holding us back in the ‘intellectual capital’ of America. He believes that there is simply no evidence or way for one to contend that evolution doesn’t exist. ● Explain the author’s line of reasoning by identifying the claims used to build the argument and the connections between them. ○ Nye begins by discussing how America is a pioneer in science -- how people from around the world come here for our understanding of science, which is a component of his main idea. He then introduces how the portion of the population that doesn’t believe in science is holding the nation back as this ‘intellectual capital’ -- also a component of his main idea. Nye compares this disbelief to attempting to “do” geology while not believing in tectonic plates -- doesn’t work. This example is used to try to express how bizarre it is for evolution to be disregarded -- how this, as aforementioned, just doesn’t work; he believes if one tries to not believe in evolution their “worldview becomes...inconsistent.” Nye ends by asking parents to not brainwash their children into believing evolution doesn’t exist because they are false. He overall sees the support of this ideology as hindering unity and integrity to the scientific field of America. ● Evaluate the effectiveness of the evidence the author uses to support the claims made in the argument. ○ Even though he is Bill Nye, I don’t believe that his argument was backed with any effective evidence to drive his point home. Yes, his point was clear and concise but he had nothing to attest to what he was saying to us. He was the star of a popular television show and is renowned in the field of science, but his unbacked argument is rather unacceptable -even if I believe what he is saying. Yes, he explains how America is this ‘intellectual capital’ and people that don’t believe in evolution are holding us back, but he doesn’t go much further than that; it almost feels that the video is present to simply attempt to degrade them.

Barclay 2

Lawrence Krauss ● Identify the author’s argument, main idea, or thesis. ○ Lawrence Krauss uses the creationism-evolution debacle to assert that “the purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it.” He then asserts that “If many don’t believe in something that is indeed true, we must do a better job at teaching it.” ● Explain the author’s line of reasoning by identifying the claims used to build the argument and the connections between them. ○ Lawrence Krauss sharply begins by expressing his confusion when it comes to people believing in things that “defy the evidence of reality.” He then ties in Marco Rubio - someone many are familiar with - to jab at the idea of teaching kids both creationism and evolution. He believes that this “notion” of allowing kids to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old is extremely wrong and misleading; though many people believe in creationism over evolution, he ties back to his idea of education being a tool to overcome ignorance and not to validate it. ○ Krauss then adds a statistic of 50% of people surveyed by the National Science Foundation believe that the sun orbits around the Earth. This is not the case at all. He then wonders if this anti-Galilean and Copernican idea should be taught in schools and quickly remarks no. This ties right back to his main idea as he asserts “we must do a better job in teaching physics and biology” and not allow students to put faith into ideologies with no substance or support. He ends by affirming that by failing students, they’ll fall behind in the hyper-competitive world we live in -we must teach kids more honestly and better than we do now. ● Evaluate the effectiveness of the evidence the author uses to support the claims made in the argument. ○ I believe that the evidence Krauss uses is actually very strong. He offers that great 50% of Americans believe the sun orbits the Earth statistic -even naming that it comes from the National Science Foundation. In addition to this, he calls out Marco Rubio -- someone most of us, if not all, are familiar with. This adds an element of familiarity to his argument as well as currentness. Aside from these, he fights forward with his ideology of overcoming ignorance in education to say that we can’t fail students with false information because it will lead them to fall behind. In the end, he put up a great fight and the evidence he used helped me understand his argument and expand upon what I’ve already believed. II. Once you've deconstructed both, answer the following question: Which argument was

Barclay 3

more effective and why? (Provide an explanation for your response - which is itself an argument!!!) ● Lawrence Krauss’s argument was exponentially better than the one Bill Nye provided on the validity of denying the entire concept of evolution. Krauss fights against the other side whereas Nye just criticizes it and pleas for it to ‘die out.’ I also felt that Krauss was more interested in proving his point and delivering his idea -- Bill Nye honestly appeared quite uninterested to me and annoyed that the other side of the argument even existed. Even though it might be annoying to have to defend your belief time and time again, that’s a crucial part of an argument -- standing by what you believe in and want others to follow. Even though I think putting no faith in evolution is comical, Bill Nye’s video doesn’t give me enough to work with. If I was unfamiliar with the issue, I would most likely lean towards the pro-evolution, anti-creationism side -- but if someone were to ask me why I may not have a definitive answer. ● Krauss also cites an interesting statistic -- an example of tangible evidence that Nye lacks altogether. It’s astounding to think that ~50% of people think the sun revolves around the Earth! I feel that Krauss used this to his advantage greatly in saying that it’s wrong to teach false information and tied this back to his view on evolution, without explicitly repeating “Creationism has no substance!” time and time again. This example really made everything so much clearer for me and allowed me to connect this false planetary orbit belief to creationism and evolution myself. ● In the end I believe that Krauss did a much better job than Bill Nye. Nye doesn’t really seem to push back religious beliefs against science, but just brings them up and states they’re negative to the development and image of America and its scientific realm. Krauss does this with determination and poise, whereas Nye just fills 150 seconds with a lack of eye contact and an annoyed aura. With Nye, why should the parents he is reaching out to not teach their children that evolution doesn’t exist if he won’t explicitly say why or provide evidence to convince them? He needed to do what Krauss did and argue against it, as I’ve said, not just move on. An argument can’t just be ‘let me put my two cents in and then go’, it has to be splashed with passion and justification....